So those of y'all who think the estate tax ("death tax")

[VoiceOfReason]

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.

Agreed!

[HvilleHokie]

Of all the taxes that should be eliminated, the estate tax is one of the last. First up should be income tax.

[Hokie5150]

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 ( ) 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.

That a tax only impacts a small percentage of the population is no reason it should be in place...

[awesome guy]

Of all the taxes that should be eliminated, the estate tax is one of the last. First up should be income tax.

we were promised it would be removed when we got the income tax. Surprisingly, the government lied.

[VoiceOfReason]

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 ( ) 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.

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?

Not to people capable of reading. Please highlight my use of the words "adult" and "thinker" in my post above. Do you ever fact check yourself? Or is that not in the Troll 101 handbook?

[awesome guy]

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 ( ) 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.

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?

Not to people capable of reading. Please highlight my use of the words "adult" and "thinker" in my post above. Do you ever fact check yourself? Or is that not in the Troll 101 handbook?

if you were capable of reading, you would have picked up this.

...something to the effect...

[VoiceOfReason]

That a tax only impacts a small percentage of the population is no reason it should be in place...

True. However, the reason it was put in place is covered in my original post.

[VoiceOfReason]

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 ( ) 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.

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?

Not to people capable of reading. Please highlight my use of the words "adult" and "thinker" in my post above. Do you ever fact check yourself? Or is that not in the Troll 101 handbook?

if you were capable of reading, you would have picked up this.

...something to the effect...

OK, please highlight any synonyms to the words "adult" and "thinker" in my original post. You really don't have much logical basis to your bullshit streams, do you? You accused me of something, so now back it up with facts if you can. [We know you cannot.]

[BigDave]

Yes, we know that taxes are a holy and sacred thing to the left, but how can you deny that it's double taxation? I earn $1 billion and pay income taxes on that $1 billion. Then I die and want to leave it to someone and it's taxed again. That's double taxation. You may think double taxation is okay, but it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

In the original article, the author whined that the corporation might be an S-corp and not a C-corp. C corporations are double-taxed and it's absurd - no other country does this. The company pays income taxes on the money and then when they turn around and do a distribution, the recipient pays income taxes on it. (Obviously, his company is an S corporation or something that is taxed in a similar way - there is 0.0% chance it's a C corporation and talking about it is only intended to confuse the low information voters.) The way C corporations are taxed is double taxation. Period. Again, you may think that's a good thing, but it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

I a small piece of Apple. Apple - the company where I am a .00000000001% (or whatever) owner - pays taxes on its profit. Then, my company turns around and pays me a dividend from that already-taxed profit. I pay a tax on it again. Were Apple an S corporation, there would be no such double taxation, but because it's a C corporation, I have to pay taxes on it twice.

As for whether the super-wealthy ought to be able to pass their wealth along to their heirs, why shouldn't they be able to? It's their money.

"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."

Oh good grief. When they were alive, they paid taxes on it. When their heirs spend it, they will pay taxes. The government has already taken 40% of it (or more, depending on when it was earned). All I'm saying is that the government shouldn't take ANOTHER 50% of what was left over after the 40% they already took.

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 ( ) 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.

[Hokie5150]

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.

Or we could just make stupid strawman arguments...

[ip_law-hokie]

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?

No. Yes.

[USN_Hokie]

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.

First - it would be a poor assumption to think that the death tax would even apply to a man like Sterling. My FIL, for example (who is nowhere near as wealthy as Sterling, but wealthy enough that it's a serious consideration) has already structured his assets so he will have almost no impact from state/federal estate taxes.

Second - I think the death tax is wrong for additional, more damning reasons. It's money that's already been taxed once. Additionally, it's just confiscation and not tied to the creation of any wealth. The government is stealing it, but they don't care because the victim is dead. Therefore, I don't think someone is a hypocrite for opposing the death tax - even if it means keeping the rest of the tax code.

[Hokie CPA]

He's gonna be limited in what he can buy in order to defer that gain. I mean, it's not like you can sell a sports franchise, use the proceeds to buy a building in Manhattan, and call it a like-kind exchange.

He'll have to buy several performing arts companies, museums, zoos, a casino, a golf course, another sports franchise (good luck with that one), or a ski resort to get it to qualify. I don't know how much of that is realistic. So they may be getting a little over-anxious about the deferred gain possibility.

[awesome guy]

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 ( ) 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.

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?

Not to people capable of reading. Please highlight my use of the words "adult" and "thinker" in my post above. Do you ever fact check yourself? Or is that not in the Troll 101 handbook?

if you were capable of reading, you would have picked up this.

...something to the effect...

OK, please highlight any synonyms to the words "adult" and "thinker" in my original post. You really don't have much logical basis to your bullshit streams, do you? You accused me of something, so now back it up with facts if you can. [We know you cannot.]

read your first sentence. And those are the words you used in the other other thread before putting your idiocy on full display.

[ip_law-hokie]

Yes, we know that taxes are a holy and sacred thing to the left, but how can you deny that it's double taxation? I earn $1 billion and pay income taxes on that $1 billion. Then I die and want to leave it to someone and it's taxed again. That's double taxation. You may think double taxation is okay, but it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

In the original article, the author whined that the corporation might be an S-corp and not a C-corp. C corporations are double-taxed and it's absurd - no other country does this. The company pays income taxes on the money and then when they turn around and do a distribution, the recipient pays income taxes on it. (Obviously, his company is an S corporation or something that is taxed in a similar way - there is 0.0% chance it's a C corporation and talking about it is only intended to confuse the low information voters.) The way C corporations are taxed is double taxation. Period. Again, you may think that's a good thing, but it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

I a small piece of Apple. Apple - the company where I am a .00000000001% (or whatever) owner - pays taxes on its profit. Then, my company turns around and pays me a dividend from that already-taxed profit. I pay a tax on it again. Were Apple an S corporation, there would be no such double taxation, but because it's a C corporation, I have to pay taxes on it twice.

As for whether the super-wealthy ought to be able to pass their wealth along to their heirs, why shouldn't they be able to? It's their money.

"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."

Oh good grief. When they were alive, they paid taxes on it. When their heirs spend it, they will pay taxes. The government has already taken 40% of it (or more, depending on when it was earned). All I'm saying is that the government shouldn't take ANOTHER 50% of what was left over after the 40% they already took.

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 ( ) 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.

The things is, they often don't pay taxes on it. Like this example.

I think we all agree that the tax code is a mess, but as HVille said, the estate tax should be one of the last to go.

[ip_law-hokie]

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.

First - it would be a poor assumption to think that the death tax would even apply to a man like Sterling. My FIL, for example (who is nowhere near as wealthy as Sterling, but wealthy enough that it's a serious consideration) has already structured his assets so he will have almost no impact from state/federal estate taxes.

Second - I think the death tax is wrong for additional, more damning reasons. It's money that's already been taxed once. Additionally, it's just confiscation and not tied to the creation of any wealth. The government is stealing it, but they don't care because the victim is dead. Therefore, I don't think someone is a hypocrite for opposing the death tax - even if it means keeping the rest of the tax code.

re your first point, that is a reason to fix the estate tax, not end it.

re your second point, I don't get so worked up about all that. Like in this example, rich people often don't (legally) pay taxes.

[BigDave]

He's gonna be limited in what he can buy in order to defer that gain. I mean, it's not like you can sell a sports franchise, use the proceeds to buy a building in Manhattan, and call it a like-kind exchange.

He'll have to buy several performing arts companies, museums, zoos, a casino, a golf course, another sports franchise (good luck with that one), or a ski resort to get it to qualify. I don't know how much of that is realistic. So they may be getting a little over-anxious about the deferred gain possibility.

What I thought the author was claiming (and I have no idea if this is true) is that he has two years from the date of the sale to make that like-kind exchange. So if he dies in the next two years, he could say (or his heirs could say) that he planned to make the exchange and thus they pay no capital gains taxes on the sale ever.

That's a stupid loophole (if it exists).

[HvilleHokie]

Yes, we know that taxes are a holy and sacred thing to the left, but how can you deny that it's double taxation? I earn $1 billion and pay income taxes on that $1 billion. Then I die and want to leave it to someone and it's taxed again. That's double taxation. You may think double taxation is okay, but it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

In the original article, the author whined that the corporation might be an S-corp and not a C-corp. C corporations are double-taxed and it's absurd - no other country does this. The company pays income taxes on the money and then when they turn around and do a distribution, the recipient pays income taxes on it. (Obviously, his company is an S corporation or something that is taxed in a similar way - there is 0.0% chance it's a C corporation and talking about it is only intended to confuse the low information voters.) The way C corporations are taxed is double taxation. Period. Again, you may think that's a good thing, but it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

I a small piece of Apple. Apple - the company where I am a .00000000001% (or whatever) owner - pays taxes on its profit. Then, my company turns around and pays me a dividend from that already-taxed profit. I pay a tax on it again. Were Apple an S corporation, there would be no such double taxation, but because it's a C corporation, I have to pay taxes on it twice.

As for whether the super-wealthy ought to be able to pass their wealth along to their heirs, why shouldn't they be able to? It's their money.

"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."

Oh good grief. When they were alive, they paid taxes on it. When their heirs spend it, they will pay taxes. The government has already taken 40% of it (or more, depending on when it was earned). All I'm saying is that the government shouldn't take ANOTHER 50% of what was left over after the 40% they already took.

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 ( ) 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.

The heir that is getting the money was never taxed on it. Thus it's not double taxation. Taxes are applied whenever money changes hands: employer to employee, estate to heir, customer to business.

[Hokie5150]

Taxes are applied whenever money changes hands: employer to employee, estate to heir, customer to business.

Then tax gifts as well.

[Hokie CPA]

He's gonna be limited in what he can buy in order to defer that gain. I mean, it's not like you can sell a sports franchise, use the proceeds to buy a building in Manhattan, and call it a like-kind exchange.

He'll have to buy several performing arts companies, museums, zoos, a casino, a golf course, another sports franchise (good luck with that one), or a ski resort to get it to qualify. I don't know how much of that is realistic. So they may be getting a little over-anxious about the deferred gain possibility.

What I thought the author was claiming (and I have no idea if this is true) is that he has two years from the date of the sale to make that like-kind exchange. So if he dies in the next two years, he could say (or his heirs could say) that he planned to make the exchange and thus they pay no capital gains taxes on the sale ever.

That's a stupid loophole (if it exists).

I don't think it works that way. I'm pretty sure if the exchange isn't completed at the time of death then the tax is assessed on the taxpayer's final tax return. In other words, the tax isn't deferred until the like-kind exchange is completed.

[ip_law-hokie]

Taxes are applied whenever money changes hands: employer to employee, estate to heir, customer to business.

Then tax gifts as well.

There is a gift tax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BigDave]

The heir that is getting the money was never taxed on it. Thus it's not double taxation. Taxes are applied whenever money changes hands: employer to employee, estate to heir, customer to business.

Well, for one thing, the estate pays the estate tax, not the heir ... so the estate is being double taxed on the money.

But more than that, your salary and your sales are commercial transactions. Moving money within your family is not.

[VoiceOfReason]

Yes, we know that taxes are a holy and sacred thing to the left, but how can you deny that it's double taxation? I earn $1 billion and pay income taxes on that $1 billion. Then I die and want to leave it to someone and it's taxed again. That's double taxation. You may think double taxation is okay, but it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

In the original article, the author whined that the corporation might be an S-corp and not a C-corp. C corporations are double-taxed and it's absurd - no other country does this. The company pays income taxes on the money and then when they turn around and do a distribution, the recipient pays income taxes on it. (Obviously, his company is an S corporation or something that is taxed in a similar way - there is 0.0% chance it's a C corporation and talking about it is only intended to confuse the low information voters.) The way C corporations are taxed is double taxation. Period. Again, you may think that's a good thing, but it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

I a small piece of Apple. Apple - the company where I am a .00000000001% (or whatever) owner - pays taxes on its profit. Then, my company turns around and pays me a dividend from that already-taxed profit. I pay a tax on it again. Were Apple an S corporation, there would be no such double taxation, but because it's a C corporation, I have to pay taxes on it twice.

As for whether the super-wealthy ought to be able to pass their wealth along to their heirs, why shouldn't they be able to? It's their money.

"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."

Oh good grief. When they were alive, they paid taxes on it. When their heirs spend it, they will pay taxes. The government has already taken 40% of it (or more, depending on when it was earned). All I'm saying is that the government shouldn't take ANOTHER 50% of what was left over after the 40% they already took.

Thanks for the response BigDave. A few comments...
1) I never denied it is not "double taxation", in fact I acknowledged it in my post. I only said that there was emotion in using that term.

2) My post strayed from the S-corp and C-corp aspects since posters started in the higher level tax itself. Sorry if my tangent was not appropriate.

3) Why should the heir of a wealthy person live in this country and never pay taxes? Without the estate tax we would need to tax working people more to compensate. Is that what you favor? Working people paying full freight?

4) Now... I am not excited about 40%. I think conservatives and progressives can have a reasonable discussion about that, rather than an all or nothing choice.

[VoiceOfReason]

The heir that is getting the money was never taxed on it. Thus it's not double taxation. Taxes are applied whenever money changes hands: employer to employee, estate to heir, customer to business.

Well, for one thing, the estate pays the estate tax, not the heir ... so the estate is being double taxed on the money.

But more than that, your salary and your sales are commercial transactions. Moving money within your family is not.

For the record, we are double taxed all the time. My salary is taxed and every dollar I get from the ATM is after tax money. When I buy my latte at Starbucks... or my gun rack... I pay sales tax. Double tax... earning and spending.

[nolanvt]

The heir that is getting the money was never taxed on it. Thus it's not double taxation. Taxes are applied whenever money changes hands: employer to employee, estate to heir, customer to business.

Well, for one thing, the estate pays the estate tax, not the heir ... so the estate is being double taxed on the money.

But more than that, your salary and your sales are commercial transactions. Moving money within your family is not.

For the record, we are double taxed all the time. My salary is taxed and every dollar I get from the ATM is after tax money. When I buy my latte at Starbucks... or my gun rack... I pay sales tax. Double tax... earning and spending.

Sounds like a great reason for a consumption-based tax system, which I support over the current system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk