charlie5 0 #51 December 12, 2011 QuoteQuotewhat's wrong with having that much money? That really is the right question to ask. What could possibly be so wrong with having that much money? And, maybe more importantly, what could be so wrong with incredible wealth being kept by very few, as is increasingly happening in the Western world, with the US seemingly in the lead. That question touches on why the likes of Warren Buffet feel there should be an estate tax, and the answer doesn't have anything to do with jealousy. The US is already, or at least well on its way, to being a plutocracy. You need wealth to attain any kind of power in the US. As an example, just look at the posts on Speaker's Corner lamenting the fact that politicians have to "sell their souls" in order to aquire enough wealth and resources to win an election. Note also the general disdain for an oligarchy in the US. The country is founded on the tought that government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Now, to get to your question, what is wrong with having that much money, or more importantly what is so wrong with very few holding incredible wealth? The risk is the culmination of the path we have already travelled down significantly, the effective creation of a plutocratic oligarchy. I think some have already coined the phrase plutarchy. That sounds more like a problem with Politicians. Term limits.The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #52 December 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhat I don't like about the inheritance tax is, it's so high, I'm seeing ranches sold-off by descendants to pay the tax. Instead of family ranches and farms staying in the family, they usually wind-up in the hands of land speculators and pasture land and farm land is suddenly 'housing developements'! Corporations buy them up. The best possible way to transfer assets from individuals to corporations is a death tax. Corporations never have to pay them. People do. The estate tax is the corporatist dream. No doubt! I'm seeing several ranches in my area on the block right now. The for sale signs all read: 'Will Divide'. Much of it is due to the drought we are experiencing but 3-ranches I know of ar due to death of the owner and the kids have to sell to pay the tax. There's been a movement to put an end to the 'inheritance tax' but it doesn't seem to have gotten very far. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #53 December 12, 2011 Quoteyou equate a decent inheritance tax as communism - get used to the idea You equate taking people's things with "decent." QED My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #54 December 12, 2011 QuoteTerm limits. Removing term limits would by a good next step in creating, not preventing a plutarchy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #55 December 12, 2011 Quote3-ranches I know of ar due to death of the owner and the kids have to sell to pay the tax. Wait. You mean that family businesses are being broken up due to taxes? Wow and gee. And yet, there are people who find death taxes to be so beneficial to the country, for it redistributes that wealth to everyone. No it doesn't. It allows corporations to do things like buy ranches at estate sale prices. Thus pushing out the small businesses and expanding the breadth of agribusiness. If ever there was a policy that enabled big businesses to shit on small ones, I cannot think that any would be better than the estate tax. Of course, dreamdancer sees it as nothing more than tearing down a rich person. Which is all dreamdancer is about, anyway. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #56 December 12, 2011 QuoteWait. You mean that family businesses are being broken up due to taxes? Or maybe due to poor estate planning? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #57 December 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteWait. You mean that family businesses are being broken up due to taxes? Or maybe due to poor estate planning? Is estate planning a method of using "loop holes" to avoid your heirs having to pay unfair and excessive taxes when you die? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danornan 79 #58 December 12, 2011 Sort of gotten off topic - Read "The Walmart Effect" to learn the cause and effect of the"problem." It is us!Dano Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #59 December 12, 2011 Nice way of stating it, puts a fair bit of spin on it, but whatever floats your boat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #60 December 12, 2011 QuoteQuote3-ranches I know of ar due to death of the owner and the kids have to sell to pay the tax. Wait. You mean that family businesses are being broken up due to taxes? Wow and gee. And yet, there are people who find death taxes to be so beneficial to the country, for it redistributes that wealth to everyone. No it doesn't. It allows corporations to do things like buy ranches at estate sale prices. Thus pushing out the small businesses and expanding the breadth of agribusiness. If ever there was a policy that enabled big businesses to shit on small ones, I cannot think that any would be better than the estate tax. Of course, dreamdancer sees it as nothing more than tearing down a rich person. Which is all dreamdancer is about, anyway. Since this area is expanding in population, these ranches are being sold off in 5 and 10 acre parcels for 'homesteads'... not agribusiness. Most of the ranchers I know, are not 'rich' by any means. All ranches in Texas are not 'Southfork'. It's hard to be 'rich' when you only draw 1 paycheck a year. All those bills accrued through the year have to be paid. Things such as feeds, medications, fencing materials, electricity for wells, Vet bills, pick-up payments and general maintenance. Right now, with the drought, there's no grass and cattle feed is the highest it's ever been. Cattle have to be sold just to meet expenses and try to hold-on to what they've got. It's tough. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #61 December 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat I don't like about the inheritance tax is, it's so high, I'm seeing ranches sold-off by descendants to pay the tax. Instead of family ranches and farms staying in the family, they usually wind-up in the hands of land speculators and pasture land and farm land is suddenly 'housing developements'! Corporations buy them up. The best possible way to transfer assets from individuals to corporations is a death tax. Corporations never have to pay them. People do. The estate tax is the corporatist dream. No doubt! I'm seeing several ranches in my area on the block right now. The for sale signs all read: 'Will Divide'. Much of it is due to the drought we are experiencing but 3-ranches I know of ar due to death of the owner and the kids have to sell to pay the tax. There's been a movement to put an end to the 'inheritance tax' but it doesn't seem to have gotten very far. Chuck rubbish - the kids have to sell because they want to divide it and maximise their inheritance... not one will want to work the farm to keep it going by themselves... then they blame 'taxes' instead of their greed...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #62 December 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat I don't like about the inheritance tax is, it's so high, I'm seeing ranches sold-off by descendants to pay the tax. Instead of family ranches and farms staying in the family, they usually wind-up in the hands of land speculators and pasture land and farm land is suddenly 'housing developements'! Many of the 'kids' want to keep the ranch going. In the case of 2 or more siblings, one or more might sell-off and I'm sure, out of greed but, the ranch is continued on a 'smaller' scale. I know of two brothers who inherited the family ranch. Originally, it was 14,000 acres. The one brother kept his part going as a working cattle ranch. The other, sold his portion to The Nature's Conservancy. I'm not going to say that greed doesn't rear it's ugly head but the inheritance tax is a big persuader to sell. Chuck Corporations buy them up. The best possible way to transfer assets from individuals to corporations is a death tax. Corporations never have to pay them. People do. The estate tax is the corporatist dream. No doubt! I'm seeing several ranches in my area on the block right now. The for sale signs all read: 'Will Divide'. Much of it is due to the drought we are experiencing but 3-ranches I know of ar due to death of the owner and the kids have to sell to pay the tax. There's been a movement to put an end to the 'inheritance tax' but it doesn't seem to have gotten very far. Chuck rubbish - the kids have to sell because they want to divide it and maximise their inheritance... not one will want to work the farm to keep it going by themselves... then they blame 'taxes' instead of their greed... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #63 December 12, 2011 QuoteFor example, assume an estate of $3.5 million in 2006. There are two beneficiaries who will each receive equal shares of the estate. The maximum allowable credit is $2 million for that year, so the taxable value is therefore $1.5 million. Since it is 2006, the tax rate on that $1.5 million is 46%, so the total taxes paid would be $690,000. Each beneficiary will receive $1,000,000 of untaxed inheritance and $405,000 from the taxable portion of their inheritance for a total of $1,405,000. This means that they would have paid (or, more precisely, the estate would have paid) a taxable rate of 19.7%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_Statesstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #64 December 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteFor example, assume an estate of $3.5 million in 2006. There are two beneficiaries who will each receive equal shares of the estate. The maximum allowable credit is $2 million for that year, so the taxable value is therefore $1.5 million. Since it is 2006, the tax rate on that $1.5 million is 46%, so the total taxes paid would be $690,000. Each beneficiary will receive $1,000,000 of untaxed inheritance and $405,000 from the taxable portion of their inheritance for a total of $1,405,000. This means that they would have paid (or, more precisely, the estate would have paid) a taxable rate of 19.7%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States just before that, you bleated: Quote rubbish - the kids have to sell because they want to divide it and maximise their inheritance... not one will want to work the farm to keep it going by themselves... then they blame 'taxes' instead of their greed... In your wiki example, each one of them has to come up with $345,000 to pay the tax bill. What options do you think they have? Generally one - sell the estate. They don't have the option of "working the farm;" it doesn't generate the sort of cash flow necessary to pay that in year one. Or they could take on another large mortgage and get foreclosed on in a couple years. It's amazing you got the gall to troll the others by calling them commies when you have a picture of Marx hanging over your bed's headboard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #65 December 12, 2011 Quote That sounds more like a problem with Politicians. Term limits. State and city governments have been experimenting with term limits since the mid 90s when the idea got populist traction. And yet, these days regional governments are in the worst shape ever. Coincidence? Rather than have a politician constantly trying to keep his office, you've traded it for a politician that's always trying to get a new office in 2-6 years. Trading away any incumbency advantage has made him even more likely to trade influence for money. It doesn't work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #66 December 12, 2011 QuoteOr they could take on another large mortgage... exactly - they could work the farm, make a profit and pay off the loan. or sell it and take the quick money...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #67 December 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteOr they could take on another large mortgage... exactly - they could work the farm, make a profit and pay off the loan. or sell it and take the quick money... says the guy who is hiding in Thailand where dropzone money can fund lots of drinking and hookers. What do you know about running a profit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #68 December 12, 2011 and while you're slagging me off - the 1% get richer at our expense...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #69 December 12, 2011 Quoteand while you're slagging me off - the 1% get richer at our expense... maybe at your's. You haven't shown any risk taking tendencies - you instead blame lazy heirs for not giving you more money. No small irony. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #70 December 12, 2011 QuoteYou haven't shown any risk taking tendencies. there was that time i got hit by a prop...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #71 December 12, 2011 Disagree. Go start a company on your own and accept the risk of success. Oh wait. You and your ilk have no desire to do that. You want a handout. Panhandling at everyone's expense is not a solution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #72 December 12, 2011 QuoteDisagree. Go start a company on your own and accept the risk of success. exactly what i've done... nextstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #73 December 12, 2011 By avoidance. Thailand doesn't count when the discussion is US specific. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #74 December 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteFor example, assume an estate of $3.5 million in 2006. There are two beneficiaries who will each receive equal shares of the estate. The maximum allowable credit is $2 million for that year, so the taxable value is therefore $1.5 million. Since it is 2006, the tax rate on that $1.5 million is 46%, so the total taxes paid would be $690,000. Each beneficiary will receive $1,000,000 of untaxed inheritance and $405,000 from the taxable portion of their inheritance for a total of $1,405,000. This means that they would have paid (or, more precisely, the estate would have paid) a taxable rate of 19.7%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States Basic economics 101. They NEED cash on hand to pay the tax or sell. Damned few farmers or ranchers have that kind of money in the bank. Too many farms and ranches have mortgages already. To buy more cattle or farm machinery. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #75 December 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteFor example, assume an estate of $3.5 million in 2006. There are two beneficiaries who will each receive equal shares of the estate. The maximum allowable credit is $2 million for that year, so the taxable value is therefore $1.5 million. Since it is 2006, the tax rate on that $1.5 million is 46%, so the total taxes paid would be $690,000. Each beneficiary will receive $1,000,000 of untaxed inheritance and $405,000 from the taxable portion of their inheritance for a total of $1,405,000. This means that they would have paid (or, more precisely, the estate would have paid) a taxable rate of 19.7%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States just before that, you bleated: Quote rubbish - the kids have to sell because they want to divide it and maximise their inheritance... not one will want to work the farm to keep it going by themselves... then they blame 'taxes' instead of their greed... In your wiki example, each one of them has to come up with $345,000 to pay the tax bill. What options do you think they have? Generally one - sell the estate. They don't have the option of "working the farm;" it doesn't generate the sort of cash flow necessary to pay that in year one. Or they could take on another large mortgage and get foreclosed on in a couple years. It's amazing you got the gall to troll the others by calling them commies when you have a picture of Marx hanging over your bed's headboard. Thank you sir, for that! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
