My Estate Tax Proposal: Shoot it down if you wish!

I'd also challenge the ridiculous notion that a child doesn't help a parent earn family income.

At least in my household, I see very little difference between the suppport a wife who doesn't work provides with that of a child aged 10 and up.

After that point, I was mowing the lawn, painting anything that needed painting, and generally making sure the property my family owned was well kept. After college, I would have no issue helping my parents with construction projects or any other sort of capital improvement made to their property.

I know many friends that worked very hard for their family business either waiting tables, operating cash registers, or doing other work to support the family. I get the distinct impression that the notion that people don't 'earn' the income their parents accumulate never spent enough time working to help their family as children.

Quote from Danman114 : I'd also challenge the ridiculous notion that a child doesn't help a parent earn family income. At least in my household, I see very little difference between the suppport a wife who doesn't work provides with that of a child aged 10 and up. After that point, I was mowing the lawn, painting anything that needed painting, and generally making sure the property my family owned was well kept. After college, I would have no issue helping my parents with construction projects or any other sort of capital improvement made to their property. I know many friends that worked very hard for their family business either waiting tables, operating cash registers, or doing other work to support the family. I get the distinct impression that the notion that people don't 'earn' the income their parents accumulate never spent enough time working to help their family as children.

Did you read the original post? I am proposing that the child pays the same rate as everyone else, not more. Let's say Person A earns $100k at a job and pays $30k in taxes. Let's say Person B "helps" his parents earn $100k in their business which he then inherits upon their death. Are you really arguing that Person B should pay less than $30k in taxes?

Quote from Dr. J : and people wonder why many try to spend every last cent (or even go deep in the hole) before they die - why the hell keep $$ around when the government will just take it from you? At the very least go out and buy some PM's and disperse them....

What kinda mindset prefers to spend money frivolously than to leave a portion of it for his loved ones?

Quote from jonsmith74 : People like Romney...and John Kerry, too, right? But so what? Why are you so envious of people like Romney and Kerry?

You must think that just because one side approves of Rmoney's low taxes that they other side would automatically approve of Kerry's supposed low taxes. I have seen no evidence of that and in fact I really don't care if the benefactor is Republican or Democrat. They all have to pay their fair share which is way more than what they pay now.

Quote from Radeck : Wow...only in the twisted leftist logic is $2 million the same as 'pay almost no income tax'. How much did YOU pay in income tax last year?

Let's test the logic/conviction behind this post.

Proposal: we give a $10,000 (or 90% of their income tax, whichever is lower) tax break to everyone.

Agree or disagree? You think those Norquist Boys would dare not vote for such a tax decrease proposal?

Quote from TRNT : You must think that just because one side approves of Rmoney's low taxes that they other side would automatically approve of Kerry's supposed low taxes. I have seen no evidence of that and in fact I really don't care if the benefactor is Republican or Democrat. They all have to pay their fair share which is way more than what they pay now.

What exactly is "fair" share. The more you make the more you give.. Obviously that's not it because a flat percentage increases the amount you give based on income.

So I'm assuming you think a scaling percentage is fair.. Except we brought up Romney and Kerry etc.. and what they pay being unfair.

Back to the example yet again. Let's say one loses a $500k in the stock market this year. That same year they earn $500k at their regular job,

Should he pay over 35%? or should he pay 0%. If he makes $500k in the market it's unfair for him to merely pay 10% capital gains (at least by most liberal's logic). But at the same time it's unfair to allow him to negate regular income gains with capital losses?

Another interesting tax fact is that the common individual doesn't get his w/ capital gains when they sell their property. By mere definition that's what capital gains are. It seems there are alot of exceptions out there that most people wouldn't even think twice about. If anything.. nobody is paying their fair share.

Quote from Gotchaforce : LOL U GOT ME YOU NAMED A RICH DEMOCRAT!! Wake up, youre in the podium, you actually have to provide an argument, however poor it may be.

You first...you took a lame swing at Romney, who, unlike Kerry, actually had a real job (and, btw, created a lot of other jobs). Meanwhile, Kerry married someone who inherited money.

I'm not sure that bagging on Romney as someone who doesn't earn money was a bright idea. A better example of the type of example you were trying to illustrate is Kerry.

Quote from TRNT : You must think that just because one side approves of Rmoney's low taxes that they other side would automatically approve of Kerry's supposed low taxes. I have seen no evidence of that and in fact I really don't care if the benefactor is Republican or Democrat. They all have to pay their fair share which is way more than what they pay now.

What is fair share, again? In other words, just pay more and more until when? Your gut is satisfied? LOL!

And I don't think what you falsely attributed to me above.

I cited Kerry because he is far more illustrative of the other poster's point, an inheritor who didnt earn the wealth he now seeks to shelter. At least Romney worked for a living to earn something. Kerry married an inheritor.

Quote from Gotchaforce : I said nothing about how romney "earned" his wealth by basically being given his job on a platter by his rich father.

Riiight, you were not at all commenting about the source of Romney's wealth...lol.

Quote : All i said was romney, whos tax rate was 11% (its not 13% or whatever bullshit he fed america, we all know he is going to just get that money back by having his accountant retroactively itemize those deductions to the gay hating mormon church) would have a lower estate tax rate than me. Im sorry i dont know john kerrys tax rate off the top of my head and that i didnt choose the right rich person "correctly" due to whatever bullshit slighted remarks you THOUGHT i made against romney.

Man, envy just sucks, yeah?

The solution to your "issue" here is not simply raising taxes...its eliminating the need for an army of over-priced accountants and lawyers to figure out how to shelter money from taxes.

Wouldn't you agree?

That's the simplest and most effective solution.

Quote from DJPlayer : What exactly is "fair" share. The more you make the more you give.. Obviously that's not it because a flat percentage increases the amount you give based on income. So I'm assuming you think a scaling percentage is fair.. Except we brought up Romney and Kerry etc.. and what they pay being unfair. Back to the example yet again. Let's say one loses a $500k in the stock market this year. That same year they earn $500k at their regular job, Should he pay over 35%? or should he pay 0%. If he makes $500k in the market it's unfair for him to merely pay 10% capital gains (at least by most liberal's logic). But at the same time it's unfair to allow him to negate regular income gains with capital losses? Another interesting tax fact is that the common individual doesn't get his w/ capital gains when they sell their property. By mere definition that's what capital gains are. It seems there are alot of exceptions out there that most people wouldn't even think twice about. If anything.. nobody is paying their fair share.

first we have been over this several times. The picture is not as grimm as you paint it. For example, investors are in full control of when to buy and when to sell and there can time in which year they would realize a loss.

Second I recall I brought the text of and IRS rule and it seemed that investors could get the full credit for their loss in future years if they get back on the positive side although you said that that is not so.

And last but not least, I think of this as a red herring at least for the rmoneys as obviously he is turning profit year after year.

Quote from jonsmith74 : What is fair share, again? In other words, just pay more and more until when? Your gut is satisfied? LOL! And I don't think what you falsely attributed to me above. I cited Kerry because he is far more illustrative of the other poster's point, an inheritor who didnt earn the wealth he now seeks to shelter. At least Romney worked for a living to earn something. Kerry married an inheritor.

It is interesting that you complain about my attributing something to you that you do not believe and then you say this:

"In other words, just pay more and more until when? Your gut is satisfied? LOL!"

Indeed LOL.

At any rate, they are all paying less than their fair share. About time to make them pay their fair share.

Scrap estate taxes altogether and treat capital gains as income? Pay your fair share of taxes now so your estate won't have to once you are gone....what a concept.

Quote from TRNT : first we have been over this several times. The picture is not as grimm as you paint it. For example, investors are in full control of when to buy and when to sell and there can time in which year they would realize a loss.

sure.. and there's really no good time to realize a loss unless you feel the position has a further downside.

Quote : Second I recall I brought the text of and IRS rule and it seemed that investors could get the full credit for their loss in future years if they get back on the positive side although you said that that is not so.

everything is based on a year end positive or negative. If you end w/ a negative you're a capital loss. In which case you can use a deduction of $1500 per year single ($3k a year married). You can carry that over year after year after year. This is the part where I draw issue.. They purposely cap those losses low so you can't truly benefit from the loss.

Quote : And last but not least, I think of this as a red herring at least for the rmoneys as obviously he is turning profit year after year.

he very well maybe.. people with big money tend to have very very intelligent people manage their money. Most people took hits in certain year though.. He was most likely living off dividends.. But if he had to much wrapped up in the market he would've been forced to sell.. take the loss then reinvest. Then he'd be stuck w/ capital losses that would probably take 1000 years to use up.

I think my point is that the whole system the government has built up is an umbrella to catch you if you fall. You lose your job, end up on the streets etc.. The government is there with funds to assist. You lose big in the market and people jump off skyscrapers because the umbrella wasn't built for you.

Quote from DJPlayer : sure.. and there's really no good time to realize a loss unless you feel the position has a further downside.

It is dec 20, you have $50K in profit. You also have two accounts each ne has lost $50K. Being in crontrol, you cash in one of the losses this year and cash in the second one Jan 1. This way you are unlikely o be in the re any given year.

Quote from DJPlayer : everything is based on a year end positive or negative. If you end w/ a negative you're a capital loss. In which case you can use a deduction of $1500 per year single ($3k a year married). You can carry that over year after year after year. This is the part where I draw issue.. They purposely cap those losses low so you can't truly benefit from the loss.

As I said I quoted and IRS rule that implied differently.

Quote from DJPlayer : he very well maybe.. people with big money tend to have very very intelligent people manage their money. Most people took hits in certain year though.. He was most likely living off dividends.. But if he had to much wrapped up in the market he would've been forced to sell.. take the loss then reinvest. Then he'd be stuck w/ capital losses that would probably take 1000 years to use up. I think my point is that the whole system the government has built up is an umbrella to catch you if you fall. You lose your job, end up on the streets etc.. The government is there with funds to assist. You lose big in the market and people jump off skyscrapers because the umbrella wasn't built for you.

Investing is not working. added risk comes with added expectation of return. Gov need not subsidize cost of risk especially that some risks could be bad for the society. IMO, people should have a real job and on the side do investing knowing the risk.