United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:38 am

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


UWS DWF UWS Lunch UWS Sports UWS Help TSL Football TSL Lounge TSL MBB Acronyms Top 25 Topics


Forum rules


Please be civil.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9158
Location: New York, NY
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:20 pm
Posts: 5300
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican
What a ridiculous article.

So the author's complaint is that it's possible that he won't be double-taxed?

Why the hell should he be double-taxed on it?

And to your point, if conservatives get their way and the death tax is eliminated, then the whole thing with cost basis step up would presumably be done away with too. The whole purpose of that is so that you don't get double-taxed when someone dies - if the death tax goes away, then presumably this provision will be allowed to sunset.

_________________
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:11 pm
Posts: 3264
ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html
What of it? Why should the government have a greater claim to Sterling's estate than his heirs?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:01 pm
Posts: 8504
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html


What's to consider?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
I love UWS!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:25 am
Posts: 8217
he is not going to get the section 1033, but do you agree double taxation is good, the estate tax is taxing items that have already had taxes paid on them, thus double taxation. I agree tho it is crappy for people that have made a lot in there lives to pass that to their relatives or even give it to charity. Much less the dude that has a lot of assets and not much that is liquid and dies and the heirs have to sell whatever the asset is (wether they want to or not) in order to pay the estate taxes (on assets that have already been taxed)

I think double taxation is bad myself and giving the gov. more money will solve zero of our problems

ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9158
Location: New York, NY
BigDave wrote:
What a ridiculous article.

So the author's complaint is that it's possible that he won't be double-taxed?

Why the hell should he be double-taxed on it?

And to your point, if conservatives get their way and the death tax is eliminated, then the whole thing with cost basis step up would presumably be done away with too. The whole purpose of that is so that you don't get double-taxed when someone dies - if the death tax goes away, then presumably this provision will be allowed to sunset.


?? It was an objective assessment of his likely tax burden on his 2billion dollar sale. Based on his assessment, it's a good chance the only tax he will have to pay on the sale will be via the estate tax, it at all.

and re the stepped up basis point, the end result would hurt the middle class because they don't pay estate taxes anyway.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9158
Location: New York, NY
cwtcr hokie wrote:
he is not going to get the section 1033, but do you agree double taxation is good, the estate tax is taxing items that have already had taxes paid on them, thus double taxation. I agree tho it is crappy for people that have made a lot in there lives to pass that to their relatives or even give it to charity. Much less the dude that has a lot of assets and not much that is liquid and dies and the heirs have to sell whatever the asset is (wether they want to or not) in order to pay the estate taxes (on assets that have already been taxed)

I think double taxation is bad myself and giving the gov. more money will solve zero of our problems

ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html



I don't have a problem with people of DS means getting double taxed. As shown in this article, the occurrence of this double taxation is often less than it appears.

I'm too hungover to decipher the sarcasm.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9158
Location: New York, NY
nolanvt wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html


What's to consider?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



The estate tax is likely the only tax that will placed on the sale.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9158
Location: New York, NY
Hokie5150 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html
What of it? Why should the government have a greater claim to Sterling's estate than his heirs?


Because we don't live in an anarchy?

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30101
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
he is not going to get the section 1033, but do you agree double taxation is good, the estate tax is taxing items that have already had taxes paid on them, thus double taxation. I agree tho it is crappy for people that have made a lot in there lives to pass that to their relatives or even give it to charity. Much less the dude that has a lot of assets and not much that is liquid and dies and the heirs have to sell whatever the asset is (wether they want to or not) in order to pay the estate taxes (on assets that have already been taxed)

I think double taxation is bad myself and giving the gov. more money will solve zero of our problems

ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html



I don't have a problem with people of DS means getting double taxed. As shown in this article, the occurrence of this double taxation is often less than it appears.

I'm too hungover to decipher the sarcasm.



Why? Sounds like you want to take the money just because it's there.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9158
Location: New York, NY
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
he is not going to get the section 1033, but do you agree double taxation is good, the estate tax is taxing items that have already had taxes paid on them, thus double taxation. I agree tho it is crappy for people that have made a lot in there lives to pass that to their relatives or even give it to charity. Much less the dude that has a lot of assets and not much that is liquid and dies and the heirs have to sell whatever the asset is (wether they want to or not) in order to pay the estate taxes (on assets that have already been taxed)

I think double taxation is bad myself and giving the gov. more money will solve zero of our problems

ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html



I don't have a problem with people of DS means getting double taxed. As shown in this article, the occurrence of this double taxation is often less than it appears.

I'm too hungover to decipher the sarcasm.



Why? Sounds like you want to take the money just because it's there.


Yes, I think a 1.8 billion dollar gain should be taxed.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30101
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
he is not going to get the section 1033, but do you agree double taxation is good, the estate tax is taxing items that have already had taxes paid on them, thus double taxation. I agree tho it is crappy for people that have made a lot in there lives to pass that to their relatives or even give it to charity. Much less the dude that has a lot of assets and not much that is liquid and dies and the heirs have to sell whatever the asset is (wether they want to or not) in order to pay the estate taxes (on assets that have already been taxed)

I think double taxation is bad myself and giving the gov. more money will solve zero of our problems

ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html



I don't have a problem with people of DS means getting double taxed. As shown in this article, the occurrence of this double taxation is often less than it appears.

I'm too hungover to decipher the sarcasm.



Why? Sounds like you want to take the money just because it's there.


Yes, I think a 1.8 billion dollar gain should be taxed.


It already is. Why do you want to tax is twice?

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9158
Location: New York, NY
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
he is not going to get the section 1033, but do you agree double taxation is good, the estate tax is taxing items that have already had taxes paid on them, thus double taxation. I agree tho it is crappy for people that have made a lot in there lives to pass that to their relatives or even give it to charity. Much less the dude that has a lot of assets and not much that is liquid and dies and the heirs have to sell whatever the asset is (wether they want to or not) in order to pay the estate taxes (on assets that have already been taxed)

I think double taxation is bad myself and giving the gov. more money will solve zero of our problems

ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html



I don't have a problem with people of DS means getting double taxed. As shown in this article, the occurrence of this double taxation is often less than it appears.

I'm too hungover to decipher the sarcasm.



Why? Sounds like you want to take the money just because it's there.


Yes, I think a 1.8 billion dollar gain should be taxed.


It already is. Why do you want to tax is twice?


Why not.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30101
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Why not.


because I was brought up to not take what isn't mine.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18539
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html


Sterling is able to take advantage of an overly-complicated tax code, and your response is to keep/make it more complicated? The fact that someone could write an article hypothesizing the different tax avoidance paths he could take speaks to this. Do away with it all and move to either a flat tax, or a consumption tax.........

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:27 pm
Posts: 1742
ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html



OMFG...we can get any more of whitey's money...OMG...he is not going to pay 500 mil in taxes...what a crime!! OMG OMG OMG... I demand an investigation and I also demand my share of Sterlings money- I earned it...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9158
Location: New York, NY
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html


Sterling is able to take advantage of an overly-complicated tax code, and your response is to keep/make it more complicated? The fact that someone could write an article hypothesizing the different tax avoidance paths he could take speaks to this. Do away with it all and move to either a flat tax, or a consumption tax.........


That's a fair point. But let's look at the likely alternative: eliminating the death tax and retaining the rest of the tax code, as this would sell to the LIV Fox News crowd. The result would be that DS pays no tax on his sale.

If you want to simply the tax code via wholesale changes, then fine: eliminating the estate tax can be part of that conversation.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30101
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html


Sterling is able to take advantage of an overly-complicated tax code, and your response is to keep/make it more complicated? The fact that someone could write an article hypothesizing the different tax avoidance paths he could take speaks to this. Do away with it all and move to either a flat tax, or a consumption tax.........


That's a fair point. But let's look at the likely alternative: eliminating the death tax and retaining the rest of the tax code, as this would sell to the LIV Fox News crowd. The result would be that DS pays no tax on his sale.

If you want to simply the tax code via wholesale changes, then fine: eliminating the estate tax can be part of that conversation.


Do you think the current tax code is fair? Do you support simplification?

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:21 pm
Posts: 2103
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Every chance I get
Oh good... another topic on which my Voice of Reason will be slandered by emotional outrage.

First of all... if you call it "death tax" and use terms like "double taxation" then of course you will generate sympathy for eliminating the tax among livs. While none of these terms are incorrect, neither articulates the actual purpose of the estate tax.

In our society, we have to fund our government. And this comes thru taxes. Income taxes are one source, and primarily apply to working people above a certain minimum income level. Estate taxes were put in place so that those who are very wealthy will also contribute financially, especially if they are so wealthy they no longer need to work.

This is taken from the IRS website... (yes, an actual source for an actual fact!)
Most relatively simple estates (cash, publicly traded securities, small amounts of other easily valued assets, and no special deductions or elections, or jointly held property) do not require the filing of an estate tax return. A filing is required for estates with combined gross assets and prior taxable gifts exceeding $1,500,000 in 2004 - 2005; $2,000,000 in 2006 - 2008; $3,500,000 for decedents dying in 2009; and $5,000,000 or more for decedent's dying in 2010 and 2011 (note: there are special rules for decedents dying in 2010); $5,120,000 in 2012, $5,250,000 in 2013 and $5,340,000 in 2014.

So... if AG loses his battle to float above his own bullshit ( :mrgreen: ) and passes on today... his heirs will need to pay a tax on his estate if and only if... his taxable estate exceeds $5.34M. At this level, it should be clear that the VAST MAJORITY of Americans never come close to worrying about an estate tax. And those that do usually have clever accountants to reduce their taxable estate.

Back to the point... the choice here is simple. For the super-wealthy... do we want a society where those with all the resources can pass it along free and clear to their heirs, ensuring those heirs do no have to contribute? Or should we recognize that those who did very well in our safe, regulated, free market capitalist system should give back a little bit more than the common man after their demise?

I suppose a conservative and a progressive may have different answers to that question. But at least having a better understanding of the issue and the intent behind it is more conducive to problem solving than using emotional terms like "death tax" and "double taxation" to fool the idiots who likely will never pay that tax. :mrgreen:


Last edited by VoiceOfReason on Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:20 pm
Posts: 5300
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican
ip_law-hokie wrote:
?? It was an objective assessment of his likely tax burden on his 2billion dollar sale. Based on his assessment, it's a good chance the only tax he will have to pay on the sale will be via the estate tax, it at all.

and re the stepped up basis point, the end result would hurt the middle class because they don't pay estate taxes anyway.


Again, you're assuming that if the death tax were abolished that the step up rule would remain in place. Nobody is arguing for that, except to the extent that we'd prefer to get rid of capital gains taxes completely.

I don't see why, if we have an income tax and we have a capital gains tax, everyone shouldn't pay it regardless of when they die. All taxes hurt the middle class, so I'm not quite sure why you're saying that this tax "hurts" the middle class any more than any other tax "hurts" the middle class.

I don't think we should have an income tax at all and I don't think we should have a capital gains tax at all, but if we do, then everyone ought to pay it - you shouldn't get a one-time "get out of income tax free" card.

Maybe 50 years ago, it was an undue burden to figure out what the cost basis was but in this modern age, that's less of an issue. I could see, though, allowing you to make an election to pay a flat rate "death tax" in exchange for getting to use the current value as the cost basis in the event that the original cost basis is unknown and unknowable.

I think that your anger at the thought of removing the death tax is misdirected. Your real anger should be over the loophole that allows him to escape paying the same capital gains tax that you, I, and even poor people have to pay. Whether he dies today or in 10 years, so long as we continue to have a capital gains tax, he (or his heirs) ought to pay it.

_________________
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9158
Location: New York, NY
VoiceOfReason wrote:
Oh good... another topic on which my Voice of Reason will be slandered by emotional outrage.

First of all... if you call it "death tax" and use terms like "double taxation" then of course you will generate sympathy for eliminating the tax among livs. While none of these terms are incorrect, neither articulates the actual purpose of the estate tax.

In our society, we have to fund our government. And this comes thru taxes. Income taxes are one source of that taxes and primarily apply to working people above a certain minimum income level. Estate taxes are put in place so that those who are very wealthy will also contribute financially.

This is taken from the IRS website... (yes, an actual source for an actual fact!)
Most relatively simple estates (cash, publicly traded securities, small amounts of other easily valued assets, and no special deductions or elections, or jointly held property) do not require the filing of an estate tax return. A filing is required for estates with combined gross assets and prior taxable gifts exceeding $1,500,000 in 2004 - 2005; $2,000,000 in 2006 - 2008; $3,500,000 for decedents dying in 2009; and $5,000,000 or more for decedent's dying in 2010 and 2011 (note: there are special rules for decedents dying in 2010); $5,120,000 in 2012, $5,250,000 in 2013 and $5,340,000 in 2014.

So... if AG loses his battle to float above his own bullshit ( :mrgreen: ) and passes on today... his heirs will need to pay a tax on his estate if and only if... his taxable estate exceeds $5.34M. At this level, it should be clear that the VAST MAJORITY of Americans never come close to worrying about an estate tax. And those that do usually have clever accountants to reduce their taxable estate.

Back to the point... the choice here is simple. For the super-wealthy... do we want a society where those with all the resources can pass it along free and clear to their heirs, ensuring those heirs do no have to contribute? Or should we recognize that those who did very well in our safe, regulated, free market capitalist system should give back a little bit more than the common man after their demise.

I suppose a conservative and a progressive may have different answers to that question. But at least having a better understanding of the issue and the intent behind it is more conducive to problem solving than using emotional terms like "death tax" and "double taxation" to fool the idiots who likely will never pay that tax. :mrgreen:


good post.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:11 pm
Posts: 3264
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html
What of it? Why should the government have a greater claim to Sterling's estate than his heirs?


Because we don't live in an anarchy?
OK...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9158
Location: New York, NY
Hokie5150 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html
What of it? Why should the government have a greater claim to Sterling's estate than his heirs?


Because we don't live in an anarchy?
OK...


or we could pay for your wars with libertarian pixie dust.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30101
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
VoiceOfReason wrote:
Oh good... another topic on which my Voice of Reason will be slandered by emotional outrage.

First of all... if you call it "death tax" and use terms like "double taxation" then of course you will generate sympathy for eliminating the tax among livs. While none of these terms are incorrect, neither articulates the actual purpose of the estate tax.

In our society, we have to fund our government. And this comes thru taxes. Income taxes are one source, and primarily apply to working people above a certain minimum income level. Estate taxes were put in place so that those who are very wealthy will also contribute financially, especially if they are so wealthy they no longer need to work.

This is taken from the IRS website... (yes, an actual source for an actual fact!)
Most relatively simple estates (cash, publicly traded securities, small amounts of other easily valued assets, and no special deductions or elections, or jointly held property) do not require the filing of an estate tax return. A filing is required for estates with combined gross assets and prior taxable gifts exceeding $1,500,000 in 2004 - 2005; $2,000,000 in 2006 - 2008; $3,500,000 for decedents dying in 2009; and $5,000,000 or more for decedent's dying in 2010 and 2011 (note: there are special rules for decedents dying in 2010); $5,120,000 in 2012, $5,250,000 in 2013 and $5,340,000 in 2014.

So... if AG loses his battle to float above his own bullshit ( :mrgreen: ) and passes on today... his heirs will need to pay a tax on his estate if and only if... his taxable estate exceeds $5.34M. At this level, it should be clear that the VAST MAJORITY of Americans never come close to worrying about an estate tax. And those that do usually have clever accountants to reduce their taxable estate.

Back to the point... the choice here is simple. For the super-wealthy... do we want a society where those with all the resources can pass it along free and clear to their heirs, ensuring those heirs do no have to contribute? Or should we recognize that those who did very well in our safe, regulated, free market capitalist system should give back a little bit more than the common man after their demise.

I suppose a conservative and a progressive may have different answers to that question. But at least having a better understanding of the issue and the intent behind it is more conducive to problem solving than using emotional terms like "death tax" and "double taxation" to fool the idiots who likely will never pay that tax. :mrgreen:


When you start off every post with something to the effect of you're an adult and thinker only to follow it up with the diarrhea you post, do you not see how disproves your initial statement?

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:01 pm
Posts: 8504
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
should be eliminated, consider this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-st ... 00454.html


What's to consider?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



The estate tax is likely the only tax that will placed on the sale.


I don't have a problem with it under the current tax code.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
I love UWS!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!