Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.....

[cpwill]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

That's a simplification at best. Buffett no doubt has arranged his affairs to MINIMIZE the tax, but the tax owed at his death will be substantial, measured in $billions, unless he gives it to charity.

That is extremely doubtful. The tax owed at his death will be minimized through the structure of holding it in a trust. He does indeed publicly intend to give it to "charity", but he seems to define "charity", interestingly as "his trust".

Another simplification. 99% or more of "small businesses" won't owe any estate tax. So we're sort of in the gray range with calling this a "small business."

The question wasn't "what percentage of small businesses owe death taxes", it was "what businesses get hit by the death tax". The point being made the Trust Fund Babies who are invoked to ignite some kind of righteous indignation, implicitly impugning moral worth onto the death tax, were in fact protected in ways that small businesses were not.

Your uncle is solidly part of the top 1/10th of 1% in America.

That is very doubtful - the top 0.1% have an average net worth of $371 million, which my guesstimate would be is probably about 35 times what his net worth is. He's in the upper range of the average millionaire. However, the business he is in is capital heavy, and so he has factory-property, heavy machinery, trucks, and the like. That puts the valuation well over the $5 million, and is what forces the sale in order to raise the liquidity necessary to pay the tax.

In this case, the business has to have a value at death greater than $10.7 million. And the tax is only owed on the amount exceeding $10 million, at a top rate of 40%.

The limit is $5,430,000. I think you are assuming use of a bypass trust?

A $15 million estate, no planning at all, would owe $1.7 million - about 11% of the value. That tax can be paid over 14 years if the estate is as you describe

That I did not know. Can you cite/explain that? I am able to find where it was part of the tax prior to the re-vamp, but not after.

But the point is at current levels, it's awfully rare for estate taxes to cause families to liquidate businesses.

If the extended payout is correct and still in effect, then I can see how that would indeed work to allow most small businesses to survive.

 

[imagep]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

Yes, If I make money and wish for children to have it after I pass. Its not the governments role to come swoop in and take it.

It's the governments roll to do whatever our elected leaders want it to be.

We get the government we deserve.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

I think you meant, "partisan ideologues"



You're hilarious - defeat your own argument. You got it right - you MAY owe taxes, but you either are or are not pregnant.

BTW, the words in brackets are my own....



Ask your wife where in the IRC (aka the law) the tax is referred to as a death tax? Get back to me.

There was no need to butcher a simple post to prove you have no clue about the most basic principles of taxation related to estates.

Whether one may or may not owe taxes upon their death does not eliminate the fact that taxes due are a result of their death. It can't get any simpler than that.

As to the IRS, and the Code, I've posted the direct link, as well as posted a direct cut and paste of the specific language. I'm not doing it again. Prove to me Death Taxes is not referenced in the IRC.

Now run along at get busy, I expect an answer.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

All true. What does that have to do with my example? Everything I posted was exactly true. Are you suggesting you know something about my wife's client? Don't be an idiot.

You said, "A recent client of my wife.....At the time of the decedents death, the maximum they could take for a personal exemption was $600k." I was just pointing out that the exemption equivalent is nearly 10 times greater than that in 2015, and hasn't been at $600,000 for 14 years now.

FWIW, I'm all for the recent increases in the exemption equivalent. In 1997, lots of ordinary people with real property could get snagged with the estate tax. But at $11 million per couple, that's a true rarity anymore - saves a lot of people from doing a lot of unnecessary estate planning.

Is there a right to avoid taxes indefinitely? People have a right to avoid paying taxes as long as possible. There are generation skipping trusts and many other Dynasty type mechanisms that can be used.

Sure, but you're lamenting that property that's appreciated by $20 million is at some point taxed on that appreciation. If you don't believe in capital gains taxes, OK, but we tax capital gains and at some point those capital gains should be subject to tax. Otherwise, it just introduces inequity where a family that can afford to sit on $20 million in value indefinitely avoids tax, but a family that sells the property to fund college, medical expenses, or just daily living is forced to pay taxes not levied on the wealthy.

Don't be coy, just admit you want that money, and you don't give a damn what it's being used for or by whom. They don't deserve it the spoiled bastards. Does that sum it up?

I'm sure your wife has lots of stories of truly spoiled bastards and their female equivalents who absolutely don't deserve a thin dime of their parent's money. If you want to see the worst in people, stand between them and money they did absolutely NOTHING to earn. The sense of entitlement some of these heirs have is breathtaking, and truly nauseous.

But that's not the actual motivation. I just don't believe in an aristocracy. It's not more complicated than that.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

It's the governments roll to do whatever our elected leaders want it to be.

We get the government we deserve.

I have no sympathy for people who lose out to the G after a death. There are so many ways around it.
But people, for some reason, don't plan to die. Die they will, but make no end of life arrangements.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

Looks like it will be more Taxes by BO.....the Demos are backing this play stating its okay since the economy is improving. What say ye?




Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings - Katie Pavlich

I think that would be fair if it was adjusted for inflation. For example if the 10k house was bought for 10k in the 1900s and sells for 120k now it would be a tax savings as 10k in 1910 is worth about $240k now. Then you assess if the house has truly increased in value.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

That is extremely doubtful. The tax owed at his death will be minimized through the structure of holding it in a trust. He does indeed publicly intend to give it to "charity", but he seems to define "charity", interestingly as "his trust".

I guess we agree - the tax will be minimized, but holding it in trust doesn't produce any kind of estate tax magic. It does help, but it's highly unlikely any legal strategy will come close to avoiding tax on Buffet's now $60 billion or more in net worth.

The question wasn't "what percentage of small businesses owe death taxes", it was "what businesses get hit by the death tax". The point being made the Trust Fund Babies who are invoked to ignite some kind of righteous indignation, implicitly impugning moral worth onto the death tax, were in fact protected in ways that small businesses were not.

I'll agree there's a bit of selective use of rhetoric on both sides. The estate tax applies to more than "trust fund babies" but it's also true not many people's idea of a "small business" or "family farm" is one that has a net worth of more than $11 million. As an aside, it's possible to exempt things like land rich, cash poor farmers in the midwest and west. I wouldn't object to them. The problem is extending the same treatment to the wealthy who have a 'ranch' in Wyoming that they might lease for cattle but mainly have for the trout fishing and as a vacation home.

What I have to debunk more often than not, however, is the idea that heirs will owe "death tax" on the house or little farm when grandma dies. The fact is for about (literally) 99.9% (+ or - .2% or so) of us, the estate tax is a huge tax benefit, because it allows all but the very top sliver to inherit that little farm or house and the jewelry and the guns and the stocks and get a tax basis in it at current FMV. So the tax all the gains during the lives of grandma and grandpa is forever avoided.

That is very doubtful - the top 0.1% have an average net worth of $371 million, which my guesstimate would be is probably about 35 times what his net worth is. He's in the upper range of the average millionaire. However, the business he is in is capital heavy, and so he has factory-property, heavy machinery, trucks, and the like. That puts the valuation well over the $5 million, and is what forces the sale in order to raise the liquidity necessary to pay the tax.

The limit is $5,430,000. I think you are assuming use of a bypass trust?

Yes, but bypass trusts are no longer necessary after 2012. Each married couple can get the full exemption (i.e. 10.8 million in 2015) with or without going through the mechanics of a bypass. If Dad dies and leaves the business to Mom, at Mom's death she gets her exemption plus the carryover of what was NOT used at Dad's death.

It's a rule that's been a long time coming as all it functioned as was a trap for the unwary.

That I did not know. Can you cite/explain that? I am able to find where it was part of the tax prior to the re-vamp, but not after.

It's IRC Sec. 6166, and I just looked it up - no indication any part of that section has been repealed or amended.

If the extended payout is correct and still *in effect, then I can see how that would indeed work to allow most small businesses to survive.

Goodness knows I've been wrong before and haven't had any reason to look it up recently, but I think it's still good law and an available option. Bottom line is if a person is near the limits or in a few years might be near the limits, they need excellent estate planning advice from an attorney who deals nearly exclusively in that area. I do the accounting and tax compliance side of the estate and trust area and work with those folks.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

Whether one may or may not owe taxes upon their death does not eliminate the fact that taxes due are a result of their death. It can't get any simpler than that.

Taxes are due as a result of transferring assets to heirs. The gift and inheritance taxes are unified, so the tax could apply during transfers during life or at death. Doesn't matter when the transfer happens - transfer more than $5.4 million to your heirs during life or at death and you'll owe "death" taxes. And death doesn't trigger any tax - if you aren't worth at least $5.4 million, you owe no tax. Give it all to your wife - no tax. Give it to charity - no tax. Etc.

So, you're wrong, again!

As to the IRS, and the Code, I've posted the direct link, as well as posted a direct cut and paste of the specific language. I'm not doing it again. Prove to me Death Taxes is not referenced in the IRC.

Title 26, Subtitle B, Chapter 11 of the U.S.C. is titled "Estate Tax."

IRC Sec. 2001(a) - Imposition. A tax is hereby imposed on the transfer of the taxable estate of every decedent who is a citizen or resident of the United States.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

You said, "A recent client of my wife.....At the time of the decedents death, the maximum they could take for a personal exemption was $600k." I was just pointing out that the exemption equivalent is nearly 10 times greater than that in 2015, and hasn't been at $600,000 for 14 years now.

FWIW, I'm all for the recent increases in the exemption equivalent. In 1997, lots of ordinary people with real property could get snagged with the estate tax. But at $11 million per couple, that's a true rarity anymore - saves a lot of people from doing a lot of unnecessary estate planning.



Sure, but you're lamenting that property that's appreciated by $20 million is at some point taxed on that appreciation. If you don't believe in capital gains taxes, OK, but we tax capital gains and at some point those capital gains should be subject to tax. Otherwise, it just introduces inequity where a family that can afford to sit on $20 million in value indefinitely avoids tax, but a family that sells the property to fund college, medical expenses, or just daily living is forced to pay taxes not levied on the wealthy.



I'm sure your wife has lots of stories of truly spoiled bastards and their female equivalents who absolutely don't deserve a thin dime of their parent's money. If you want to see the worst in people, stand between them and money they did absolutely NOTHING to earn. The sense of entitlement some of these heirs have is breathtaking, and truly nauseous.

But that's not the actual motivation. I just don't believe in an aristocracy. It's not more complicated than that.

Well, you still haven't answered why the aversion to the use of the term DEATH TAXES.

That being confirmed, I find it disturbing that so many people have been trained to envy people who are quite likely just as hard working, and just as benevolent as the next person. The class envy meme that has been fostered to a great extent during the reign of our current President is an affront to the principles by which the founders of this nation lived and died. There will always be inequity, and that is why the United States was founded, so that people can do something about it by providing opportunity to achieve whatever can be achieved in life.

Perverting this remarkable mission is disgusting to me, especially when it's wrapped in a blanket of defeat and expectation that one should be made whole, just because.

Yes, if you want to witness the worst in people, just put money, or the possibility they won't get enough of it, in front of them. Potential inheritance does this, and so does the left with this outrageous class envy crap.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

I think that would be fair if it was adjusted for inflation. For example if the 10k house was bought for 10k in the 1900s and sells for 120k now it would be a tax savings as 10k in 1910 is worth about $240k now. Then you assess if the house has truly increased in value.

And its MY investment. Not the governments.

 

[imagep]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

I think that would be fair if it was adjusted for inflation. For example if the 10k house was bought for 10k in the 1900s and sells for 120k now it would be a tax savings as 10k in 1910 is worth about $240k now. Then you assess if the house has truly increased in value.

Absolutely.

The only legitimate reason that capital gains is lower than the tax on regular income is because typically, not all of the profit is really profit as it was just a hedge against inflation. But this is easily resolveable with an inflation adjustment based upon the year the asset was acquired.

And the capital gains loophole for inheritance is totally unjustifyable. At the time that the assets change hand, for all practical purposes, the asset has been sold, and capital gains should be charged to the estate. Then when the estate is transfered to the heirs, that wealth is income to them, thus whatever amount they receive should be taxed exactly like earned income (why would we tax unearned income at a rate less than earned income?).

It's all a scam to benefit those who may become rich due to inheritance.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

Taxes are due as a result of transferring assets to heirs. The gift and inheritance taxes are unified, so the tax could apply during transfers during life or at death. Doesn't matter when the transfer happens - transfer more than $5.4 million to your heirs during life or at death and you'll owe "death" taxes. And death doesn't trigger any tax - if you aren't worth at least $5.4 million, you owe no tax. Give it all to your wife - no tax. Give it to charity - no tax. Etc.

So, you're wrong, again!


Title 26, Subtitle B, Chapter 11 of the U.S.C. is titled "Estate Tax."

IRC Sec. 2001(a) - Imposition. A tax is hereby imposed on the transfer of the taxable estate of every decedent who is a citizen or resident of the United States.

:doh

Taxes are due as a result of death. They have many names. Estate Tax is one of those names. Death Tax is another. The taxes are owed by the Estate upon death of the decedent. Your claim could not be more wrong.

Thanks for playing, but I have no interest in watching you beat a dead horse, over and over and over.

 

[imagep]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

Well, you still haven't answered why the aversion to the use of the term DEATH TAXES.

The same reason you don't like to call it "estate tax".

It doesn't fit your political narrative.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

Well, you still haven't answered why the aversion to the use of the term DEATH TAXES.

And I've said I don't mind it a bit - sort of a marker for "partisan ideologue." All I'm doing otherwise is pointing out where you're factually wrong.

That being confirmed, I find it disturbing that so many people have been trained to envy people who are quite likely just as hard working, and just as benevolent as the next person. The class envy meme that has been fostered to a great extent during the reign of our current President is an affront to the principles by which the founders of this nation lived and died. There will always be inequity, and that is why the United States was founded, so that people can do something about it by providing opportunity to achieve whatever can be achieved in life.

Oh, please. Class envy is as old as the world. It's held in check when society makes good on a basic promise - go to school, work hard, and you'll be able to provide for your family and children, and as society gets wealthier, those gains are shared broadly, rising all boats. The basic promise is breaking down and proving to be an illusion for people who are 'just as hard working, just as benevolent' as the next person and work like heck to lose ground with living standards WORSE than their parents in many cases. That's the short answer why "class envy" has risen

Perverting this remarkable mission is disgusting to me, especially when it's wrapped in a blanket of defeat and expectation that one should be made whole, just because.

No, not "just because" but because the function of a society and a government is not to serve the interests of the plutocrats and maximize ROI for the Fortune 500. Serious question - do you expect the 10s of millions who are seeing their living standards decline, while wealth for a tiny few is skyrocketing, to not notice or to accept this without a fight?

One of the mysteries is how the elites thinks this plays out long term. Look at history around the world - there's a tipping point that's been reached at many places at various times in history and when it is reached, the fallout isn't a bit higher tax rates, it's "seize the assets, kill the inhabitants, claim their assets for their own" revolution.

Yes, if you want to witness the worst in people, just put money, or the possibility they won't get enough of it, in front of them. Potential inheritance does this, and so does the left with this outrageous class envy crap.

I guess we disagree about the nature of the sentiment. The "left" sees a system run for and by the wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy and object to that state of affairs. Seems logical to me, and logical they'd support policies that make their lives better - it's what the wealthy do, and they have $billions to spend buying policies that make their lives better.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

The same reason you don't like to call it "estate tax".

It doesn't fit your political narrative.

How does DEATH TAX establish a political narrative?

 

[JasperL]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

:doh

Taxes are due as a result of death. They have many names. Estate Tax is one of those names. Death Tax is another. The taxes are owed by the Estate upon death of the decedent. Your claim could not be more wrong.

I quoted the LAW. The law is wrong? LMAO.

And not "upon the death" but upon the TRANSFER, during life AND/OR at death.

Thanks for playing, but I have no interest in watching you beat a dead horse, over and over and over.

Hilarious.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

And I've said I don't mind it a bit - sort of a marker for "partisan ideologue." All I'm doing otherwise is pointing out where you're factually wrong.



Oh, please. Class envy is as old as the world. It's held in check when society makes good on a basic promise - go to school, work hard, and you'll be able to provide for your family and children, and as society gets wealthier, those gains are shared broadly, rising all boats. The basic promise is breaking down and proving to be an illusion for people who are 'just as hard working, just as benevolent' as the next person and work like heck to lose ground with living standards WORSE than their parents in many cases. That's the short answer why "class envy" has risen



No, not "just because" but because the function of a society and a government is not to serve the interests of the plutocrats and maximize ROI for the Fortune 500. Serious question - do you expect the 10s of millions who are seeing their living standards decline, while wealth for a tiny few is skyrocketing, to not notice or to accept this without a fight?

One of the mysteries is how the elites thinks this plays out long term. Look at history around the world - there's a tipping point that's been reached at many places at various times in history and when it is reached, the fallout isn't a bit higher tax rates, it's "seize the assets, kill the inhabitants, claim their assets for their own" revolution.



I guess we disagree about the nature of the sentiment. The "left" sees a system run for and by the wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy and object to that state of affairs. Seems logical to me, and logical they'd support policies that make their lives better - it's what the wealthy do, and they have $billions to spend buying policies that make their lives better.

Do I expect people not to notice there is a growing wealth gap. Of course not. What I would like, and will do, is expose why it exists. You speak of history of society.

That history if full of people who rallied the citizenry behind banners of Down with the Rich, only to turn their countries into sweltering hell holes of corruption and crushed dreams. These are people who manipulated the masses with false promises and outright lies. They invented controversy, and they fomented class envy and hatred.

That is the history you mysteriously leave absent from your warning about tipping points. Do you think the people aren't going to notice the crushing regulations and broken promises about improving the economy? Exactly how long do you think this lie about the rich is going to play out before the masses realize they've been had by charlatans and snake oil salesmen like our current President.

It's amazing to me to see evidence of such gross misinformation and lack of knowledge presented in a way that suggests none of that is true. It's equally amazing to read about tipping points and other such threats, when in reality the real evil is in the invention of the narrative of which you preach.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

Do I expect people not to notice there is a growing wealth gap. Of course not. What I would like, and will do, is expose why it exists. You speak of history of society.

That history if full of people who rallied the citizenry behind banners of Down with the Rich, only to turn their countries into sweltering hell holes of corruption and crushed dreams. These are people who manipulated the masses with false promises and outright lies. They invented controversy, and they fomented class envy and hatred.

That's where you're wrong - they didn't need to "invent" a controversy. Look at some of the labor movements in the U.S. The coal miners didn't need to 'invent' any controversy - they WERE being exploited. It's why many were willing to die to change their condition.

It's obviously a stretch to compare current conditions with the early 1900s, but there isn't any need to 'invent' the fact that for decades nearly all the income gains in the U.S. have flowed to a tiny sliver at the very top. It's simply what has happened. People are working harder, with almost no job security, and stagnant wages and conditions deteriorate with each passing decade.

And it doesn't matter why people revolted or even the long term outcome - sometimes it works out (our own labor movement and the progressive era in the early 1900s) and sometimes it doesn't. The point is social stability is a goal of its own, and losing it puts a lot more at risk than higher tax rates.

That is the history you mysteriously leave absent from your warning about tipping points. Do you think the people aren't going to notice the crushing regulations and broken promises about improving the economy? Exactly how long do you think this lie about the rich is going to play out before the masses realize they've been had by charlatans and snake oil salesmen like our current President.

Our current POTUS is no more of a snake oil salesman than any in my lifetime at least. I know you don't like him!

And of course people notice the broken promises. They're not reserved to democrats either. But somehow the 'crushing regulations' are resulting in record profits, bonuses, pay for CEOs, stock prices, etc. and none or almost none is trickling down.....

It's amazing to me to see evidence of such gross misinformation and lack of knowledge presented in a way that suggests none of that is true. It's equally amazing to read about tipping points and other such threats, when in reality the real evil is in the invention of the narrative of which you preach.

I suppose we don't agree on that. It's certainly not an invention about the state of the economy for millions of hard working Americans. That's the source for the discontent - not that people like me or some democrats and republicans point it out.

This thread is about estate taxes (or death taxes if you prefer). If we do away with them, we guarantee the emergence of an American Aristocracy/plutocracy - call it what you will. You say I'm inventing a narrative but won't recognize the consequences of policy you support.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

The people that get hit by the death taxes are mostly the small business owners and land owners such as farmers.

Sorry, but that's incorrect.

• Fewer than 2 in 1000 estates are required to pay any federal estate taxes.
• Most of these are taxed because of unrealized capital gains, not because someone owned a business / farm.
• In 2013, only 20 small businesses and farms were subject to estate taxes.
(Ten Facts You Should Know About the Federal Estate Tax -- Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

For example, my uncle has a small business worth a few million that he built from the ground up (no college education, started out living in a trailer) and now hires lots of folks. If he and his wife die in a car accident tomorrow, thanks to the death tax, the daughters are probably going to have to break the business up, sell off the parts, and fire all the workers, just in order to pay ole Uncle Sam.

If your uncle told you this, then he needs to hire an estate attorney ASAP.

• The first $5 million in assets in the estate is exempt from federal estate taxes.
• There is a variety of ways to reduce one's potential estate tax liabilities.
• If he plans to pass on his ownership in the company to more than one daughter, he's going to need a plan for that anyway.

Of course, it's possible the business just can't survive at all if he's out of the picture; it really depends on the business, the skills and motivations of the inheritors, and whether he wants to pass it on at all. If he does, then he should considering incorporating, setting up an LLP/LLC, setting up a trust, or other methods to reduce his tax liability and make it clear who should own and run the firm in the event of his demise.

Even in the worst-case scenario, as long as he's prepared properly the federal estate taxes shouldn't be the death knell for his business. The effective federal tax rate on estates is typically around 16%.

Sounds to me like someone needs to talk to a lawyer.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

Why the strawman about insults, when my post contained none?

In post after post after post you have used insults.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

In post after post after post you have used insults.

I'm sorry. Should there be more insults in the future, I'll try to make them like yours, so you won't be offended.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

Sorry, but that's incorrect.

• Fewer than 2 in 1000 estates are required to pay any federal estate taxes.
• Most of these are taxed because of unrealized capital gains, not because someone owned a business / farm.
• In 2013, only 20 small businesses and farms were subject to estate taxes.
(Ten Facts You Should Know About the Federal Estate Tax -- Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

Yeah, the way that they came to that number was to define "small business" as "a business whose valuation is below the amount at which the Death Tax applies".

I can do it too, watch:

100% of the death tax falls on the young children of middle class Americans who started their own small business!*




*Young children of middle class Americans who started their own small business being defined as people on whom the death tax falls.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

I'm sorry. Should there be more insults in the future, I'll try to make them like yours, so you won't be offended.

I have no idea what that means.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

Yeah, the way that they came to that number was to define "small business" as "a business whose valuation is below the amount at which the Death Tax applies".

lol

Actually, they used the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center definition: "one with more than half its value in a farm or business and with the farm or business assets valued at less than $5 million."

I also notice how you have a total dearth of evidence to back up your claim that most people who pay estate taxes are small business owners (undefined by you, of course) and farm owners.

Anyway.... I have zero doubt that your uncle can afford a half-way decent tax and/or estate attorney, who can explain how he could prepare his company for the departure from this mortal coil. His failure to hire an attorney is really not the fault of the government. Nice try, though.

 

[jonny5]

Re: Obama Wants The Death Tax Increased to 60 Percent, More Taxes on College Savings.

Very true. And with that maxim applied, everbody's influence should be equal- right?

In the end, Buffet does not appear to be concerned about the fact that wealthy people have the ability to purchase influence. Rather, he is concerned about those with inherited wealth purchasing influence disproportionate to their talents.

This influence can be both economic and political. Bush junior and some of the Kennedy's might well be good examples.

No, everyone VOTE is equal. Influence is whatever you put into it, how convincing your argument is, how much time and money you put forth. And everyone has the same freedom to do so.