Those kids should be individualistic and make their own fortunes, not sucking leech like on their dead daddy.
Those kids should be individualistic and make their own fortunes, not sucking leech like on their dead daddy.
AFAIK, it's calculated based on previous years. Since the death rate in a first world country tends not to flux too much, it's a fairly reliable way to calculate future gains.Do ya'll keep hearing how many billions, (they give some kind of exact number) of dollars we will lose on the estate tax cuts (from 55%-35%)
I am so confused! How can they say how much? Do they know how much money people will have that's taxable when they die? Do they know the people who will die, while this tax is in effect?
Is this the same accounting method they use to figure jobs saved?
I think we need to have a system that discourages extreme hereditary wealth. That's one of the cornerstones of an aristocracy, especially one we have today.
I think we need to have a system that discourages extreme hereditary wealth. That's one of the cornerstones of an aristocracy, especially one we have today.
i don't think it's your dang money, so i don't think you should get a say. your attitude here is a conerstone of jacobism, especially the kind we have today.
my wife's uncle is a true American Story; pulled himself up from poverty by his bootstraps built a small business through hard work and taking good care of his employees etc; now his business is 'worth' several million dollars, but most of those millions aren't in cash; they are in the form of machinery and the property that the plant is on. if (God forbid) he and his wife are killed in a car accident tomorrow, then on top of losing their parents, the government is going to come shake down his two girls, force them to close the business, fire all the workers (good luck to them getting new jobs; this is construction industry), sell the machinery plant and property for below-worth prices in order to pay a tax bill?
it's unconsionable.
Those kids should be individualistic and make their own fortunes, not sucking leech like on their dead daddy.
bu...but..but..It's not fair.They don't need that much. Rich people are greedy.
There are two questions about resurrecting the 'death tax': the economic question and the moral question...
The economic question is simple: Does the estate tax help create jobs, grow the economy or improve our country. In every case, the answer is no.
First of all, it is unfair to retax money that has already been taxed, at least once, as income, capital gains or dividends. Washington already got its cut when the money was earned or invested. Congress has no outstanding claim on what is left over...
Nor does it help the economy.
Let's say an entrepreneur's business is worth $15 million. Under the proposed estate tax in the bipartisan deal, the day he dies, the businessman's kids would owe Uncle Sam $3.5 million. If they don't have that kind of cash lying around — and no small businessmen do — they have to sell the family business to pay the taxes. The company that buys the business sells off its assets and lets the employees go. A successful business disappears, and experienced employers no longer create jobs. In fact, hundreds of people lose their jobs. All so Congress can increase revenue by a thousandth of a percent?...
The economic argument holds up even if the heir to a vast fortune is a total embarrassment. Even if he never gets a real job and wastes his life away buying sports cars, comic books and expensive booze, the money he pumps into his local economy — via the car dealerships, book shops and liquor stores — will create more jobs than anything Congress would do with it.
Which brings us to the moral argument, which is what this is really all about. Does the money you earn over the course of your life belong to you, or does it really belong to the government, which generously allows you to keep some of it for a while?
so what? the people who are subject to the death tax have already paid far far more taxes than those who are never subjected to it. and for all the estates under the limit that would be true as well even with the death tax
Well, the ugly truth about not having death tax and nottaxing the first $3 million is that the decedent's estate avoids paying capital gains taxes, as an example. And that can be huge.
capital gains taxes are double taxed already.
capital gains taxes are double taxed already.
How so, CP. Certainly not in my tax return.
corporate taxes are paid on that profit before it is given out to shareholders.
How so, CP. Certainly not in my tax return.
Turtle, I'm not judging it. I'm not commenting on whether or not there should be an estate tax. You prolly remember where I stand on it. But to say that it represents double taxation is, without doubt, most often not true. The example I gave was under the limit. Actually, I think it's more than fair to change the way those gains are handled. Don't you?
Ah, I see your point. I wish the IRS agreed with you. Honest!
corporate taxes are paid on that profit before it is given out to shareholders.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?