Cool. The only last thing I'll add (going back to my above post about government determining who "deserves" what). Matters like that are often issues for juries to decide, not some all-powerful government. If you want to advocate having some sort of "inheritance court" where the beneficiaries must make their argument to a jury as to why they deserve all of that money, that might be a different argument. I can't say that it strikes a happy tone with me to think about it (but I haven't given it much thought), but it's just a thought. It would probably make for great TV (and an offensive waste of government resources!).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, you just have a funny way of choosing to interpret what people say, because you are just THAT one-sided. what i was saying is that the majority of money made by any corporation is made by the workers, the CEOs etc dictate the structure and direction of the company, but the goods and/or services provided by any company are generated by those at the bottom, not at the top of the corporate ladder.

Yah, so?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Don't know the rules in America (I'm sure you can look it up) but in the UK here's one exception to inheritance tax:

I know what the laws are, I just don't think this guy does, so I'm waiting for his answer.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 first of all, you don't pay taxes on your inheritance; the estate of the person who died pays the estate tax. when you understand the basic underpinnings of estate tax then come talk to me about it.

I'm MUCH more aware of the laws than you are, believe me. YOU are the one who said that people can get out of paying estate taxes if they "really want to". So give me a better example of HOW exactly, as opposed to your lame "give it to your spouse" argument, because you and I know that we're talking about the vast majority of other estates here, the one's where that can't be done.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 with an emphatic yes, i am saying that if you give your wealth to a spouse it is not taxed under the estate tax.

As you pointed out, the estate is what gets taxed, not the individual who is inheriting it per se'. Therefor, I can't "give it to my spouse" until AFTER it has been taxed. So you're wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 there are other techniques to limit estate tax exposure by taking giving away your wealth to your beneficiaries before you die.

Yah, again, I know. It's $11,000.00 per year, non-taxable. The problem is; You're not dead yet! Why should you be forced to give up some of your money before you're dead, just to avoid the death tax??!! And maybe your recipients aren't old enough to handle that kind of money with responsibility yet?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 there are tons of techniques; you would be amazed at how little rich people can pay with the right legal advice. i see it all the time because this is what i do to earn my living.

You must get paid for shit if you think being "rich" means having an estate valued at over $2million

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 More importantly, you saying that you will reply to my 'sophmoric post' after I answer that question shows you truly don't have a full understanding of the impact of a repeal. the loss of the 'stepped up' basis in property received from a decedent is far more damaging to the average person. now, most people who don't have to pay tax after selling property received from a decedent will have to pay tax after the repeal. furthermore, if the property was purchased at a really low price by the decedent and the price has appreciated significantly, that sale will result in a huge gain to the beneficiary. under the current system if you immediately sell property you receive from a decedent you owe no tax on the sale. the repeal is actually supposed to create a revenue increase because of this little known feature. for all you republicans, that amounts to, yes, a tax increase.

You are not explaining this "aspect" of the tax code very well, IMHO. I have my doubts about your claims as to how and why it is being implemented and used because you conveniently leave out the down-sides to some of your "loop-holes", and some of your other claims are just flat out wrong. Couple that with your bias against "rich people" and everything you say about tax law has to be taken with a grain of salt.

You should know (if you really are a CPA) that there are upsides and downsides to every tax option. From what I can garner of your "stepped up" claim, the upside is that while you may pay some property tax on the inheritance, at least you won't get killed with some huge 55% tax on anything over $675,000.00 anymore

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 ...And rich people should rightly bear a greater percentage of the economic burden of the cost of the government because they utilize government resources (for the creation of their wealth) more than poor/middle class people. If you don't believe that comment just think about a the owner of a trucking company. The owner of that company gets to use the interstate highway system for his business, largely for free, at the expense of taxpayer dollars (to repair the road, etc...).

lol...your logic is AMAZING!

Never-mind that this "rich" trucking company owner pays all appropriate state and fed taxes to license and operate the trucks. Never-mind the excessively high diesel fuel tax, imposed specifically on the trucking industry as yet another way to tax. Never-mind the corporate taxes he pays, the government business taxes (like workman's comp. insurance), accidental injury or death insurance he pays for his employees, etc., etc...

Again, YOU of all people should know that business owners, large and small, are taxed to DEATH compared to the average employee. Any tax incentives they get are there to encourage them to put money back in to their business, which in turn is good for the business, the economy, the employees, etc...

Jesus dude, you are f-ing bitter as fuck about this myth you have built up in your mind of the "rich man" just fucking everyone over.

Lame.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 ...to give you different examples of how the rich people use the government (in more expensive ways than a $3000 earned income tax credit - or 50 more police officers in a bad neighborhood): cities subsidizing the cost of building a stadium...

WTF??

First off, any city that subsidizes the building of a stadium will have any number of ways of doing that (float bonds that people are free to buy or not! etc.) and motives for doing it (stadium brings a team to your city, which brings fans and their money, etc.)

So now it's a "rich man's sin" to create jobs and bring money to the city? "how the rich people use the government..." How do you think ANYTHING gets built in this country? Are people expected to show up with all of their money in hand all the time when they want to build businesses, homes, buy cars, etc.? You make it sound like a crime that their are loans and incentives given to builders and manufacturers. You know incredibly LITTLE about finance.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the power of eminent domain used to take property so that a rich developer can develop that property...

WHOA!! Bullshit! That is NOT what eminent domain is about! It's almost always because of a local, state or federal government works or transportation development. The government doesn't just show up and grab land that it then turns over to "rich developers" so they can build resorts or condos. That is such a load of crap! COULD NOT be done, nor would it even be attempted.

Stop making shit up!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 state research and development incentives for businesses to move to certain states...

So what?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the domestic production tax deduction(this deduction is 2% of income which could be in the millions or billions - far more than ), and cities provide tax abatements for businesses to develop property. none of these benefits accrue to the poor. i could go on with some thought, but the point is that while you see the benefits that poor people get, the benefits to rich people aren't in your face, but they are still present. furthermore, the benefits to the rich can cost the government far more (building a stadium is a great example of a huge subsidy to a rich team owner - even if the team has to pay it back, the government is losing on interest and opportunity costs associated with issuing that debt). some of the above examples might not display that entirely, but i just listed what i could think of off the top of my head.

Well think harder, because your examples suck.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 ... i'm not opposed a double tax system because inheritances are a disincentive for the beneficiaries to work hard. i have no problem with people accumulating the wealth they worked hard to create. but the people who inherit wealth simply by being related to someone are not deserving of that wealth and they have a general disincentive to be productive members of society (im not saying that they are, just that the ability to inherit generally will play a role in how they conduct themselve - i.e., paris hilton). one of the main premises behind keeping taxes low is to provide incentives to foster creativity and ingenuity so that people can benefit from their own hard work. this just isn't an issue with inheritances.

Oh, and so taking that wealth away from them at the end of their lives, that's "incentive" to work harder how? And what makes you think the government should be involved in showing people how they should live anyway?

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I'm MUCH more aware of the laws than you are, believe me.

so you are also a tax lawyer who graduated from NYU law school? or was it harvard, yale, columbia, or stanford? what exactly makes you more qualified than me?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco As you pointed out, the estate is what gets taxed, not the individual who is inheriting it per se'. Therefor, I can't "give it to my spouse" until AFTER it has been taxed. So you're wrong.

the gift to the spouse comes out of the estate prior to the calculation of the tax.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Yah, again, I know. It's $11,000.00 per year, non-taxable. The problem is; You're not dead yet! Why should you be forced to give up some of your money before you're dead, just to avoid the death tax??!! And maybe your recipients aren't old enough to handle that kind of money with responsibility yet?

12,000 adjusted annual for inflation. there are ways to get around that by using trusts.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You are not explaining this "aspect" of the tax code very well, IMHO. I have my doubts about your claims as to how and why it is being implemented and used because you conveniently leave out the down-sides to some of your "loop-holes", and some of your other claims are just flat out wrong. Couple that with your bias against "rich people" and everything you say about tax law has to be taken with a grain of salt.

i'm not going to write a memo for someone on TA so you can fully understand it. understand though, that when the repeal happens, little people will pay more in taxes. read this, it explains the process in plain english.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6061201568.html

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You should know (if you really are a CPA) that there are upsides and downsides to every tax option. From what I can garner of your "stepped up" claim, the upside is that while you may pay some property tax on the inheritance, at least you won't get killed with some huge 55% tax on anything over $675,000.00 anymore

i'm not a CPA, i'm far more qualified than a CPA to discuss the impact of laws. which makes it even more unbelievable that i persist with you because you clearly haven no idea what i'm talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco lol...your logic is AMAZING! Never-mind that this "rich" trucking company owner pays all appropriate state and fed taxes to license and operate the trucks. Never-mind the excessively high diesel fuel tax, imposed specifically on the trucking industry as yet another way to tax. Never-mind the corporate taxes he pays, the government business taxes (like workman's comp. insurance), accidental injury or death insurance he pays for his employees, etc., etc...

i said it before, individual taxes make up more of the treasury revenue than corporate taxes. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8116&type=0
additionally, i was talking about the cost of maintaining and repairing the highways. but that doesn't matter because it's irrelevant to your idiotic tirade.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Again, YOU of all people should know that business owners, large and small, are taxed to DEATH compared to the average employee. Any tax incentives they get are there to encourage them to put money back in to their business, which in turn is good for the business, the economy, the employees, etc...

business owners also get to deduct almost all of their expenses. furthermore, businesses can have tax loses with economic profits. deductions such as amortization and depreciation can create huge tax adjustments that don't reflect true economics, and could result in tax losses with economic profits: great for owners!!! tell me, when did you ever have a positive economic profit and a tax loss? these tax adjustments are what make the real estate market turn. there was an entire industry in the 70s and 80s that took advantage of this kind of loss manufacturing.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Jesus dude, you are f-ing bitter as fuck about this myth you have built up in your mind of the "rich man" just fucking everyone over.

i never said the rich were fucking anyone over. rich people pay my bills.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Feb-25-2008 at 22:31

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 so you are a tax lawyer who also that graduated from NYU law school? or was it harvard, yale, columbia, or stanford?

Apparently I know more than you. So assuming you are who you claim, I'd go get your money back from the Holly-Hobby Law School, if I were you.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the gift to the spouse comes out of the estate prior to the calculation of the tax.

Yah, I know. You mis-read my question and answered incorrectly. Go back and re-read the original question.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 12,000 adjusted annual for inflation. there are ways to get around that by using trusts.

Glad to hear it went up.

And trusts don't solve all of one's problems either, they're not that simple.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i'm not a CPA, i'm a tax lawyer. which makes it even more unbelievable that i persist with you because you clearly haven no idea what i'm talking about.

God help your clients.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i was talking about the cost of maintaining and repairing the highways. but that doesn't matter because it's irrelevant to your idiotic tirade.

...and as I pointed out, those costs are covered by the specific transportation-related taxes that the companies pay to the government. Your examples BLOW!

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 business owners also get to deduct almost all of their expenses. furthermore, businesses frequently have tax loses with economic profits. deductions such as amortization and depreciation can create huge tax loses while the owner recognizes no actual lose, and the owner could pay no taxes.

If they had some depreciation that year, which they then used to off-set their taxable income, it counts as a loss still!

I doubt you're a lawyer, I really do. No one can possibly be this thick and have an education.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i never said the rich were fucking anyone over...

Your posts say otherwise.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Apparently I know more than you. So assuming you are who you claim, I'd go get your money back from the Holly-Hobby Law School, if I were you.

that holly-hobby school includes one on that list.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Yah, I know. You mis-read my question and answered incorrectly. Go back and re-read the original question.

besides the fact that you didn't ask a question, you obviously didn't read what you or I wrote. so i'll repost for your convenience:

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco As you pointed out, the estate is what gets taxed, not the individual who is inheriting it per se'. Therefor, I can't "give it to my spouse" until AFTER it has been taxed. So you're wrong.

that statement is entirely false.

tell me, why are you qualified to rant about this? you're pretty good at being incorrect; i bet you wait tables at a TGI Fridays.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Feb-25-2008 at 23:11

I think I stated my view acouple of pages back so I'll stay out of this one for now but jesus, always with the roads, always with the fucking roads.

Cheerios!

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 besides the fact that you didn't ask a question, you obviously didn't read what you or I wrote.

My question from page 8;

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Are you saying that if I get an inheritance from a relative, and I don't want to pay tax on it, I can turn it over to my spouse and pay no tax?

Your response on page 9;

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 with an emphatic yes, i am saying that if you give your wealth to a spouse it is not taxed under the estate tax.

Brush up on your reading comprehension skills there, Esquire.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

If the deceased wasn't smart enough to start a family trust fund, then they deserve to be taxed!!

Screw inheretance. Any smart wealthy person who wants to pass on their wealth to their family would start a family trust fund and pay out dividends to trust holders. There is a way around every tax!!

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco My question from page 8; Your response on page 9; Brush up on your reading comprehension skills there, Esquire.

what exactly was your point? that doesn't change anything, what i said is still correct. anything left in a will or that is passed intestate to a spouse is not included in the estate and is not subject to the estate tax.

Read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/b.../15buffett.html

quote:

THE WORDS OF WARREN BUFFET Mr. Buffett, the billionaire chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, told the Senate Finance Committee that advocates of repeal were “dead wrong” to call the tax a “death tax.” It would be more appropriate to call it a “death present,” Mr. Buffett, 77, said. “A meaningful estate tax is needed to prevent our democracy from becoming a dynastic plutocracy.” Congressional Democrats are likely to seize on Mr. Buffett’s comments to bolster their argument that repeal of the estate tax amounts to a windfall for a few wealthy families. Republicans have pushed to eliminate the tax permanently or reduce the rate and exempt more estates by raising the value at which the tax takes effect. Mr. Buffett said that in the last 20 years, tax laws have allowed the “superrich” to become richer. “Tax law changes have benefited this group, including me, in a huge way,” he said. “During that time the average American went exactly nowhere on the economic scale: he’s been on a treadmill while the superrich have been on a spaceship.”

how can you argue with one of the great financial minds. he doesn't make economic mistakes!

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Feb-26-2008 at 05:39

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton If the deceased wasn't smart enough to start a family trust fund, then they deserve to be taxed!! Screw inheretance. Any smart wealthy person who wants to pass on their wealth to their family would start a family trust fund and pay out dividends to trust holders. There is a way around every tax!!

i've been saying the same for pages. GRITs, GRATs, Annuities, family partnerships, QPRTs, life insurance, marital trusts, 2503(c) trusts, etc.... are ways you can stretch the annual exclusion and other exemptions.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 how can you argue with one of the great financial minds. he doesn't make economic mistakes!

He has made plenty of mistakes. However his successes have far outnumbered his failures. You don't get to where that guy is without making plenty of mistakes.