ummm, yeah it's still their money and that money is tied up in a trust or estate until its taxed and THEN distrubuted to the appropriate heirs/charitys/etc
Warren Buffet is an idiot
- Thread starter gjn23
- Start date
ummm, yeah it's still their money and that money is tied up in a trust or estate until its taxed and THEN distrubuted to the appropriate heirs/charitys/etc
william gates SR (bill gates father) went before congress two year or so ago and told them that doing away with the death(estate) tax was wrong.Bill gates sr went on to say that if he and his son can get can rich because they are LUCKY enough to reside and work in a free capitalistic society then they should be Happy to pay taxes into that country.
IF two super wealthy idiotic Men like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates SR. think the estate tax should continue taxing .00001 of the population who can easily afford it without putting them, their family or their companies in jeopardy(when they can easily avoid paying it like so many others do)then that speaks VOLUMES to me.
Just because they are in the minority of wealthy people who believe they Should be Taxed at a more proportionate rate(notice I didnt say HIGHER rate) doesnt make them idiots- it might possibly make them patriotic about what they believe is their civic duty.
Roc
IF two super wealthy idiotic Men like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates SR. think the estate tax should continue taxing .00001 of the population who can easily afford it without putting them, their family or their companies in jeopardy(when they can easily avoid paying it like so many others do)then that speaks VOLUMES to me.
Just because they are in the minority of wealthy people who believe they Should be Taxed at a more proportionate rate(notice I didnt say HIGHER rate) doesnt make them idiots- it might possibly make them patriotic about what they believe is their civic duty.
Roc
again
are they currently doubling their annual payment to the irs?
are they refusing their irs refund and instead sending in that amount?
nice of them to decide for EVERYONE that because THEY dont need their money after they die, that EVERYBODY should pay a ridiculous inheritance tax (which is as low as 1 million, these days that isnt very much)
They aren't DECIDING anything for anyone. They are giving their opinion, and considering that they are actually two people that are in this situation - unlike most who rail on the subject that it never affects, nor will it ever affect - it is appropriate that they give that opinion and perspective.
I usually give more credit to people that these things actually effect, than those that they don't. And if these taxes weren't collected from these people that understand how little it effects them, then the rest of us would either have some really tough decisions to make, or have to pay more because of that. And let me guess, how many people complaining about this tax would scream about having to make up the difference themselves, or agree to cuts, services and protections that they believe in?
maybe they will pay double their taxes that they owe.Right after the" fiscally responsible" Republican leave's office and the war comes to a close(whenever that is)
Clinton left office 6.75 years ago with a surplus in the till for GWB.The conservative that he is - he spent it all and left us in the hole
Now entertainers want to be paid in EURO's instead of Dollars.
How could this country get so effed up in under 7 years.thank your GOP party for their fantastic leadership. What a joke
The mortgage/housing industry hasnt even come close to hitting rock bottom yet
Roc
Clinton left office 6.75 years ago with a surplus in the till for GWB.The conservative that he is - he spent it all and left us in the hole
Now entertainers want to be paid in EURO's instead of Dollars.
How could this country get so effed up in under 7 years.thank your GOP party for their fantastic leadership. What a joke
The mortgage/housing industry hasnt even come close to hitting rock bottom yet
Roc
Off the top of my head, when this was debated during W's first term, I believe the Dems agreed to an immediate relief of this tax well past the $1 million threshold, even going as high as $10 million (I am at work, I'm going off the top of head w/ memory, here.....i am sure some of the poly junkies on either side will chirp in on this one), but the R's said No, they wanted complete abolition and that is what passed and signed into law by the president.......of course, they made sure that wont happen until 2009, even though we sit here more than five full years after that debate.
Do you think they did that, so they can keep using this as a wedge issue? Judging from the rhetoric on this thread, I would say that if that was their motivation--rather than say, real tax relief for everyday folks like us--they have achieved some success there.
Basically with some minor adjustments to the law--as opposed to complete abolition--the inheritance tax would only hit the ultra rich....I know as farms go, the threshold was $4.1 million, and I believe legislation has passed in recent years that bumped that even higher.
The question is, is it moral to put a tax on such a small amount of the population.....not sure, but if all we taxed on this were people in Buffett's tax bracket, the govt would bring in a lot of revenue and probably could afford some tax relief for middle class folk.....instead, once 2009 hits, they get more tax relief, and we will end up paying more either in direct tax or indirect tax in the form of higher costs for services.
Whether it is coming from the D's or the R's, always be wary of the tax relief promises. They are all in it for themselves and their corporate brokers....in the end, we in the middle class will see more burden shifted upon us. It happens time and time again whether our President's name is Clinton or Bush.....case in point, just look at how none of them are willing to take on the impending doom of the A.M.T. tax.....of course, that topic is worth its very own thread, and, sadly, the best solutions for that and other issues would probably be generated from the various posters here, rather than in the legislative chambers in Washington or are respecitve state capitols.
Are their candidates out there that represent the middle class? I dont see any. But the corporate, rich and special interest fat cats see nothing but great candidates.
Do you think they did that, so they can keep using this as a wedge issue? Judging from the rhetoric on this thread, I would say that if that was their motivation--rather than say, real tax relief for everyday folks like us--they have achieved some success there.
Basically with some minor adjustments to the law--as opposed to complete abolition--the inheritance tax would only hit the ultra rich....I know as farms go, the threshold was $4.1 million, and I believe legislation has passed in recent years that bumped that even higher.
The question is, is it moral to put a tax on such a small amount of the population.....not sure, but if all we taxed on this were people in Buffett's tax bracket, the govt would bring in a lot of revenue and probably could afford some tax relief for middle class folk.....instead, once 2009 hits, they get more tax relief, and we will end up paying more either in direct tax or indirect tax in the form of higher costs for services.
Whether it is coming from the D's or the R's, always be wary of the tax relief promises. They are all in it for themselves and their corporate brokers....in the end, we in the middle class will see more burden shifted upon us. It happens time and time again whether our President's name is Clinton or Bush.....case in point, just look at how none of them are willing to take on the impending doom of the A.M.T. tax.....of course, that topic is worth its very own thread, and, sadly, the best solutions for that and other issues would probably be generated from the various posters here, rather than in the legislative chambers in Washington or are respecitve state capitols.
Are their candidates out there that represent the middle class? I dont see any. But the corporate, rich and special interest fat cats see nothing but great candidates.
I think Toledo's entire post was an excellent observation. Instead of dealing in absolutes, deal with the issues and working towards sensible compromise.
I'm really going to focus on railing on conservatives who want to absolve this tax, and only advocate cutting what they are against. Much like tax cuts. Much like Bush vetoing the recent health and services bill because of the democrats supposed earmarks and pork in the bill. I wonder who sponsored the three "pork" projects that he singled out in public that day? Think they were republican sponsored? I doubt it.
What about the recent defense bill? Read an article today talking about the current budget having $18 to $20 billion in earmarks, down from the record $29 billion under the republicans. Instead of getting any credit for a renewed focus on lowering earmarks and allowing for more appropriate ones - and actually proposing $9 billion less than before - they are criticized for not following through with a campaign mantra. Which is false, of course, but not important when posturing. Not only that, but $9 billion of the earmarks were attributed directly to the defense bill. What party is more responsible or benefits more from defense appropriations and earmarks? Really doesn't require a response, does it?
And then we see a dramatic increase of several hundred million dollars in abstinence programs that have been proven to have little to no affect on the behaviors of today's youth, while cutting or advocating the obsolution of non-right wing projects at every turn. So, religious right and defense contractors are handsomely repaid with pork and dollars, but anything else is highlighted? The HEIGHT of hypocrisy.
Give me mine, stay out of my yard, but damn sure protect my stuff for me. What a country this could be, eh?
I'm really going to focus on railing on conservatives who want to absolve this tax, and only advocate cutting what they are against. Much like tax cuts. Much like Bush vetoing the recent health and services bill because of the democrats supposed earmarks and pork in the bill. I wonder who sponsored the three "pork" projects that he singled out in public that day? Think they were republican sponsored? I doubt it.
What about the recent defense bill? Read an article today talking about the current budget having $18 to $20 billion in earmarks, down from the record $29 billion under the republicans. Instead of getting any credit for a renewed focus on lowering earmarks and allowing for more appropriate ones - and actually proposing $9 billion less than before - they are criticized for not following through with a campaign mantra. Which is false, of course, but not important when posturing. Not only that, but $9 billion of the earmarks were attributed directly to the defense bill. What party is more responsible or benefits more from defense appropriations and earmarks? Really doesn't require a response, does it?
And then we see a dramatic increase of several hundred million dollars in abstinence programs that have been proven to have little to no affect on the behaviors of today's youth, while cutting or advocating the obsolution of non-right wing projects at every turn. So, religious right and defense contractors are handsomely repaid with pork and dollars, but anything else is highlighted? The HEIGHT of hypocrisy.
Give me mine, stay out of my yard, but damn sure protect my stuff for me. What a country this could be, eh?
inheritance tax solution
inheritance tax solution
after you die and your spouse, all your money goes to the government after liabilities are paid no matter if you have 10 dollars or 100 billion dollars
that is what I thought......That is not fair you say. All you bleeding heart liberals who want to make sure wealthy people get robbed after they die take note. Imagine for instance you were lucky enough to own a business and have after both spouses die about 25 million dollars. You have 2 kids you want to leave the money too. If we go back to Clinton tax reform in 2011 the first 1 million is exempted. The government gets 10,800,000 and each of your kids gets 6,600,000. If you think that is fair then you are as stupid as the lawmakers in this country. The government gets more of your hard earned money than do your kids.
Inheritance tax needs to be abolished.
inheritance tax solution
after you die and your spouse, all your money goes to the government after liabilities are paid no matter if you have 10 dollars or 100 billion dollars
that is what I thought......That is not fair you say. All you bleeding heart liberals who want to make sure wealthy people get robbed after they die take note. Imagine for instance you were lucky enough to own a business and have after both spouses die about 25 million dollars. You have 2 kids you want to leave the money too. If we go back to Clinton tax reform in 2011 the first 1 million is exempted. The government gets 10,800,000 and each of your kids gets 6,600,000. If you think that is fair then you are as stupid as the lawmakers in this country. The government gets more of your hard earned money than do your kids.
Inheritance tax needs to be abolished.
Maybe those kids getting a mere $6.6 million each should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and use hard work and earn the American Dream instead of looking for a handout.
How is inheriting money a handout? All the smart people who are wealthy set up trusts anyway.
Example: A 2006 estate worth 3.5 Millionis taxed at roughly 20%
Of the $3.5M, $2M is exempt. The tax rate for the taxable $1.5M is 46%, or roughly $725K. A sole heir will inherit 2 million tax free, and $775K from the taxable portion of the inheritance.
At 2006 levels, the tax is somewhat tolerable. Still, I feel the exclusionary amount should be 5million, with a 25% tax on the remainder of an estate up to $20M. Everything over $20M should be taxed heavily at 50%.
As most on here know, the exclusionary amount is increasing annually til 2011, when it plummets to the 2001 level of $675K:scared
Of the $3.5M, $2M is exempt. The tax rate for the taxable $1.5M is 46%, or roughly $725K. A sole heir will inherit 2 million tax free, and $775K from the taxable portion of the inheritance.
At 2006 levels, the tax is somewhat tolerable. Still, I feel the exclusionary amount should be 5million, with a 25% tax on the remainder of an estate up to $20M. Everything over $20M should be taxed heavily at 50%.
As most on here know, the exclusionary amount is increasing annually til 2011, when it plummets to the 2001 level of $675K:scared
Last edited:
You know you have hit a nerve when the ole"your a bleeding heart Liberal" statement comes out
If Warren Buffet (and his Billions) were sheltered in off shore shell companies and off shore trusts( IE : Effing LOSERS -created purposely to LOSE money for balance sheet write-offs at tax time ) -Which is what GE does (FYI)
You GOP lovers would be calling him a traitor , un-patriotic, a non- us troop supporter and Greedy.
How effed up is this country. An investment genuis worth 40 billion says he pays too little in taxes to the free market society who helped him amass the fortuine in the first place and the little guy who makes a fraction of that kind of $$ says the Wealthy guy is dead wrong.
At least I know Buffet isnt smoking crack
If Warren Buffet (and his Billions) were sheltered in off shore shell companies and off shore trusts( IE : Effing LOSERS -created purposely to LOSE money for balance sheet write-offs at tax time ) -Which is what GE does (FYI)
You GOP lovers would be calling him a traitor , un-patriotic, a non- us troop supporter and Greedy.
How effed up is this country. An investment genuis worth 40 billion says he pays too little in taxes to the free market society who helped him amass the fortuine in the first place and the little guy who makes a fraction of that kind of $$ says the Wealthy guy is dead wrong.
At least I know Buffet isnt smoking crack
The guy is obviously a genius when it comes to investing, but he is a moron when it comes to taxes. If he really thinks he does not pay enough taxes, why does he not just pay what he thinks he owes. Go ahead and send the government an extra billion every year Buffet. I promise if I have a chance to shelter my income/pay smaller taxes when I get older, you can bet your last dollar I will.
I see a lot of Law and Order-esque cases dominating the tabloid headlines come 2011.
The TV media will love it. Nancy Grace just got some wood thinking about it.
Maybe I'm just being morbid :shrug:
Cie......i agree with your breakdown there.....one reason this became such a big issue is that it never was really adjusted to reflect modern times and incomes......dont think there is much true division about making up to $5 million per couple/family exempt.
smurphy, chadman.....thanks for the kind words....every now and then a cogent thought does spring from my head, must be the Lake Erie drinking water here near Toledo. I appreciate your insights as well.
Hedge.....if i were that lucky, I would want my kids to work for their cash.....build their own fortune......the true American way......still, that post inheritance tax bounty they would get, rather than earn, would still give them a big head start toward that end compared to just about everyone else.
Roc......this issue cracks me up because I hear people who work our factory bitch about this all the time even though it never impacts them......it is a wedge issue, of sorts.....if we tailored it to modern times and called it what it really is like a billionaire tax or multi-millionaire tax, instead of the death tax, nobody would be getting their panties in such a bunch....
Why cut it off at 5 million? People who have over 5 million set up trusts anyway. In actuality people who have that kind of money should not have to set up trusts and pay an attorney a bounty, it should go free and clear to their heirs.
Hey man!
If you're a reader and enjoy current event type books, try reading Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston.
The sub title is "the covert campaign to rig our tax system to benefit the super rich and cheat everybody else."
It is easy to read, meaning, despite its topic, you wont be buried under a heap of numbers.....it was fascinating and a big indictment on how both the powers that be in the R and D parties have squeezed everyday people to benefit the upper, upper, upper class incomes.
Of course, I recomend it to anyone reading this thread or just confused about all the tax rheotric out there. Just responding to you directly because of your pay grade comment, which is also true of me.
BTW, miss you in the college foots forum.....i swore I would never play Unders, but some of those systems you have passed on in the past have been cool to follow.
All the best :toast:
