Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're talking about the same people I'm talking about. Go back to your IRS website. Let's talk real numbers. Per the CDC, the most recent figure they have for deaths in the US in 2007 were 2, 447, 903 deaths. Of that number, per your IRS website 38,031 filed estate tax returns. That's about 1.5% of the people who died. And of that number, only 17,416 were taxable. 0.7% of the people who died. So a very, very, very, very, tiny number of people actually pay these estate taxes. And you think that somehow making them pay harms the US economy? That's a moot argument, and you know it. As for your argument about the threshold, and how it punishes these hardworking people, well, they're dead people when the estate tax is imposed, they've been able to enjoy the pleasures and luxuries their hard work has afforded them. If my parents die, their money will have very little sentimental value to me. Do you place sentimental value on your money? Wealth gets passed on, government just takes a cut as wealth is transferred. And it's not exactly a new concept, nor a socialist concept. This is not even an increase in a tax. Estate taxes have been much higher in the past. So what exactly is the issue?
What all this means is that the higher the estate tax, the lower the incentive to reinvest in family businesses.
Nonsense. They'll just do what the Farmers learned to do long ago. They'll declare themselves a corporation (can be done for $15) because corporations never have to pay an estate tax. Then to get around even having to pay an estate tax on the shares of that corporation they'll just start bequeathing it ahead of time so that the amount transferred per year is all below the taxable amount. Net effect, no taxes are paid.
That's the big problem with our current tax system there are so many ways to not pay taxes.
What all this means is that the higher the estate tax, the lower the incentive to reinvest in family businesses. Former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin recently used the Summers study as a springboard to compare the economic cost of a 45% estate tax versus a zero rate. He finds that the long-term impact of eliminating the death tax would be to increase small business capital investment by $1.6 trillion. This additional investment would create 1.5 million new jobs.
In other words, by raising the estate tax in the name of fairness, Mr. Obama won't merely bring back from the dead one of the most despised of all federal taxes, and not merely splinter many family-owned enterprises. He will also forfeit half the jobs he hopes to gain from his $787 billion stimulus bill. Maybe that's why the news of this unwise tax increase was hidden in a footnote.
Hmmmmm, and you are claiming that the estate tax is dead, and Obama is resurrecting the dead. Is this true?
Why, no, it isn't. Obama is only proposing to keep the estate tax at its current levels in 2010. Yes it was set to be zero in 2010, but then to reset in 2011 to a threshold of only $1 million dollars at a rate of 55%. You know, 55%, the old rate. Does Larry Summers have any figures on family-owned businesses that were splintered in 2005?
Because maybe he wants to kill the incentive for people, not part of the rich elite, to own and run a business, work a farm, ranch, or simply work a life time of 10-12 hour days to give your children a better life then you had.
Liberals have always hated it when someone died and left the wealth to their surviving family, it was just somehow unfair. Meanwhile, all the Kennedy's are rich as hell, with no work to show for it. If their philosophy on transferring of wealth actually was fair, none of the idle-rich Kennedy's would be filthy rich.
It boils down to two options. You let the family keep the money earned from their family member that passed away. They either consume (good for the economy), Produce (good for the workers and prices) or save (required in a fractional reserve system so people can borrow money). Or the other choice is let the government have it. Which seems like the more logical choice since around 75-80% of our GDP is private spending and investment. The rules changed after the projected 9.7 trillion added to the deficit. We will never tax out way out of that debt ever. It will either be inflated or we will have to grow into it. The government "infrastructure" is about the least efficient way to spend the money, it is not the people on the ground seeing the niche in the market. It's a government it comes in big and demands the market bow down to it. It tries to force people to buy things, how's that worked out?
Because maybe he wants to kill the incentive for people, not part of the rich elite, to own and run a business, work a farm, ranch, or simply work a life time of 10-12 hour days to give your children a better life then you had.
Liberals have always hated it when someone died and left the wealth to their surviving family, it was just somehow unfair. Meanwhile, all the Kennedy's are rich as hell, with no work to show for it. If their philosophy on transferring of wealth actually was fair, none of the idle-rich Kennedy's would be filthy rich.
Their elected leaders hate taxes, they just know how to get around them, they leave it up to the sheep to bargain for them since they know most people aren't rich and they will be a majority. Meanwhile they laugh in the background and talk about how patriotic the people are. They want the people championing more taxes because with larger revenue they can spend more and guarantee themselves seats. It's strange they think this law keeps from creating oligarchies. In fact keeping everyone or trying to keep everyone from ever becoming rich means no one will have the funds to stand up to the big people, the big business. No one will accumulate enough wealth to back any sort of movements. It'll be the same people in power that have been for most of the past century. The companies and people advising the white house right now.... 2+2=?
Last edited by BigJon3475; 04-03-2009 at 03:45 PM..
It boils down to two options. You let the family keep the money earned from their family member that passed away. They either consume (good for the economy), Produce (good for the workers and prices) or save (required in a fractional reserve system so people can borrow money). Or the other choice is let the government have it. Which seems like the more logical choice since around 75-80% of our GDP is private spending and investment. The rules changed after the projected 9.7 trillion added to the deficit. We will never tax out way out of that debt ever. It will either be inflated or we will have to grow into it. The government "infrastructure" is about the least efficient way to spend the money, it is not the people on the ground seeing the niche in the market. It's a government it comes in big and demands the market bow down to it. It tries to force people to buy things, how's that worked out?
Only they don't necessarily spend it, invest it, or save it in this country. People with this level of means have the ability to move it around, and that means moving it internationally.
If the government takes it people aren't borrowing it, well now they will be but as it used to be I guess.
Jon, as has already been repeated, the money has to come from somewhere. Since the estate tax applies only to the wealthiest, that money would then be coming from you and me. The government takes money out of the private sector either way.
Only they don't necessarily spend it, invest it, or save it in this country. People with this level of means have the ability to move it around, and that means moving it internationally.
Those 10 people have that chance. The 1,000's of others above the $2 million range are not going to do that. I would have to believe though that if they were going to take their money across seas the only thing I can see them doing that for at this point is higher taxes...
Now, in a little-noticed move, the company's founding family has plunged into a fight to pass income tax changes and other legislation that could preserve its grip on the USA's biggest business and the family's $84 billion fortune.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
