Taxing the Rich (pay attention lefties)

[ben ji]

Anyone arguing that its not a big deal because anyone with a brain can easily avoid the estate tax is missing the point entirely......

[AzCat]

Difference between people who inherit money and those who don't have any.  Taxes don't support the dereliction of the person who inherits wealth, in fact taxes continue to be collected from that person.

Additionally the half-life of the vast majority of inheritances, even seven figure ones, is pretty damn short.  I thought lefties liked all of that spending.  Isn't that how they now claim jobs are created?  Heirs are gold in that department.

Thought about throwing that in, but didn't think they'd have a chance of understanding it.  I believe the general rule of thumb is that a typical inheritance is usually squandered within three generations.

Maybe for uber-inheritances, I've been assured by a few financial folks that it's usually much much quicker for those inheriting up to a few million.  Think more on the order of just a few years.  

[ednksu]

Sorry I didn't get back to this thread earlier.

The main problem with our taxation system is that it allows the concentration and protection of wealth while allowing the increased, over consumption of the rich without any means to recoup their impact on society.  The rich are taking up more and more of the countries wealth under the guise of promising to reinvest it in America.  They haven't.  That is empirically proven by the increasing concentration of wealth and the crushing of the middle class.  "good jobs" that are created through capital investment are not being made by the rich/corps.  If they are not willing reinvest the benefits they reap so the government should appropriate the wealth that is suppose to go towards reinvestment.  I do agree though that the government is the last person that should be doing this and have a good track record of failing to distribute that money in a meaningful way to help investment.  But I think that we can agree to that and not get too far off topic.

your article makes one fundamental flaw that you fell for.  There is a difference between private business and public and the two are often misused as being interchangeable in these types of discussions. Sure the stats are scary about the number of IPOs.  I would love to see what the stats are like for private business creation (no I don't have them, no I won't look for them).  If private business are not being created then there is an issue.  Your article however makes people believe that no business are being created and the ones that are only seek to be bought.  Noting Google in the article is the best example of how your critque fails once again.  They waited to become a powerful corporation before they went IPO.  Your article also fails to denote the difference between the regulation that kills business and the speculative investment in tech companies culminating in the tech bubble burst.  That is more so to blame for silicon valley's failings then anything else.  Just like the housing bubble there tech bubble was built by rich people making an environment doomed to fail once it was the unregulated masses began to invest in a large scale.  

Rail, Oil 19th century to TR: PEOPLE DIED, also the massive raping of consumers and the stifling of small business because of undercutting
Banks 1920s to 1930s: great depression
50-80s industrial production, waste disposal, epa that followed: spills, rivers that caught fire, etc etc
80s airlines: Prices are out of control and the consumer gets mumped left and right, sit on tarmac for 6 hours
80s-90s telecom= eventual break up of to the baby bells: concentration and trusts which raped the customer
90s tech sector, telecom, energy: trusts which consorted to fix prices, apex @ enron
2000s broadband, internet: getting there

You are missing the point of net neutrality.  Right now it is an unregulated environment or slightly regulated through legal action.  If you look at the attack on small business by telecom companies you can see the issue.  See issues that large telecom companies have with netflix, vontage, etc etc.  Large conglomerates want to start charging consumers for access to content.  

this only serves to hurt consumers.  Companies want the ability to attack consumers codified in law as a deregulated environment with no supervision from the FCC.  This will destroy information distribution as we know it.  In the long run it will only serve to reinforce the widening gap between urban poor and the middle class and rich.  

I don't have much of a problem with enviro regs, but thanks for skewing that.  I really think the best way to encourage business to clean up the environment is the tax old dirty tech (coal) and give massive tax breaks for clean tech (scrubbers).  eff DDT and rivers that catch on fire.  

You should really look into the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act and the Glass Steagall and how that deregulation led directly to the financial crisis we have been facing.  Note also that was appealed by a pretty liberal president too.  financial services said they could regulate themselves and what do you know, 10 years later they country's economy is impacted in a rather negative manner.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Which internet tier would goEMAW.com be in?

[ednksu]

Which internet tier would goEMAW.com be in?

I would think it would be more like cinamax or hbo, add to any tier with an extra nominal monthly fee.  We should start posting more softcore porn to complete the parallel.

[Jeffy]

Those tax cuts for the top 2% sure created a lot of jobs. 

Yeah... I miss that 5% unemployment from the past administration.

[AzCat]

[Rather long rant ignoring the topic at hand deleted.]

It's all well and good to spew forth your opinions on so many issues but let's step back to your providing us a bit more actionable intelligence on the irrelevance of the estate tax.  After all, if it's so very "easy" to avoid then no one would ever pay it and there'd be no reason for it to remain on the books (it would, in other words, be wholly irrelevant).  Yet there it is raising a few tens of billions per year from those bright enough to have earned at least a few million dollars but not bright enough to overcome their ignorance of the "easy" ways you apparently believe exist to avoid saddling their heirs with an estate tax bill.

So, again, please do enlighten us as to the "easy" ways to avoid estate taxes by utilizing "some sort of corporation/LLC".  If indeed it's "easy" (as you've claimed), and if you know enough about the mechanisms to adjudge it so (as you've already done), then you should have no problem at all articulating at least the high level concepts along with broad outlines of how they operate to eliminate the tax liability.  If, as I suspect, you're incapable of discussing the concepts and the broad outlines, then feel free to skip them and go directly to illustrating your plan for avoiding estate tax by utilizing "some sort of corporation / LLC" using the simple estate hypothetical I provided to show us how you'd do it.  

As I mentioned in an earlier post: I've left the low-hanging fruit for you, that readily attainable via kindergarten-level planning that may involve only the use of a corporation or LLC (HINT) and nothing else.  That should be right in your wheelhouse.  Heck, I'll even draft the form of the model answer for you:

The businessman should have <insert approximately 20 words describing the action he should have taken>.  

If he had done so the tax on his estate would have been lower because <insert approximately 10 words describing the reason the action described would have lowered his estate's tax bill>.  

Based on the tax rates & estate described in the question he can  reasonably expect his estate to realize at least a <insert percentage> savings on the taxable portion thereof, this minimum expected savings will be approximately <insert a dollar value> based on the numbers provided.

The estate could have realized additional savings by <insert approximately 20 words describing additional steps expanding on the idea above>.  

<Extra credit: answer the original questions posed in the hypothetical utilizing the new smaller taxable estate.>

 

Feel free to copy and complete the model answer above or just give those portions you'd insert.  A complete answer requires that you draft only around 50 total words and produce a grand total of 2 numbers (only one of which must be computed).  Should take a well-informed person such as yourself less than 2 minutes.  I'm sure someone here will PM you the answer or just post it for you.

[ednksu]

[Rather long rant ignoring the topic at hand deleted.]

I'm doing this right, right?

here go ahead and start here
http://www.legalzoom.com/llc-guide/limited-liability-company-edu-center.html



(thanks for taking this discussion and driving it into the ground.  I'll just assume that you now agree with all my points on regulation since you didn't respond)
((in reality if you responded I would just do what you do and say I'm right and youre wrong with not justification))

[OregonSmock]

Those tax cuts for the top 2% sure created a lot of jobs. 

Yeah... I miss that 5% unemployment from the past administration.

Yeah... I miss the budget surplus from the Clinton administration. 

[sonofdaxjones]

Those tax cuts for the top 2% sure created a lot of jobs. 

Yeah... I miss that 5% unemployment from the past administration.

You mean the "surpluses" that actually managed to increase the national debt, and pump billions of dollars of IOU's (that had/have to be paid) in to the various Gov't Trust Funds??



Yeah... I miss the budget surplus from the Clinton administration. 

[OregonSmock]

For the love of God, 'Pad.  There's a difference between the national budget and the national debt.  Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since WWII, and also left office with a budget surplus.  Why do you Republican retards try to deny that?

[Sugar Dick]

For the love of God, 'Pad.  There's a difference between the national budget and the national debt.  Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since WWII, and also left office with a budget surplus.  Why do you Republican retards try to deny that?

who cares if I overleveraged the business, the statement of cash flows was positive and I was able to give everyone a raise!!!

[OregonSmock]

For the love of God, 'Pad.  There's a difference between the national budget and the national debt.  Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since WWII, and also left office with a budget surplus.  Why do you Republican retards try to deny that?

who cares if I overleveraged the business, the statement of cash flows was positive and I was able to give everyone a raise!!!

You have to reach a budget surplus before you can pay off the national debt.  Reagan took the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion, yet Republicans basically view him as God. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

For the love of God, 'Pad.  There's a difference between the national budget and the national debt.  Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since WWII, and also left office with a budget surplus.  Why do you Republican retards try to deny that?

who cares if I overleveraged the business, the statement of cash flows was positive and I was able to give everyone a raise!!!

You have to reach a budget surplus before you can pay off the national debt.  Reagan took the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion, yet Republicans basically view him as God. 

At this rate, Obama will have added $16 trillion to the debt over 8 years.

[Dirty Sanchez]

For the love of God, 'Pad.  There's a difference between the national budget and the national debt.  Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since WWII, and also left office with a budget surplus.  Why do you Republican retards try to deny that?

who cares if I overleveraged the business, the statement of cash flows was positive and I was able to give everyone a raise!!!

You have to reach a budget surplus before you can pay off the national debt.  Reagan took the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion, yet Republicans basically view him as God. 

Taxing and spending bills originate in the House.  Remind me again who controlled that...

And on that subject, its funny that the administration is basing its defense on the health care law in that its a tax.  The bill that passed was the Senate version.  If its a tax, then its a tax that originated in the Senate, a violation of the Constitution.

Of course, the Constitution is over 100 years old, so its impossible to understand and apply to today. 

[sonofdaxjones]

For the love of God, 'Pad.  There's a difference between the national budget and the national debt.  Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since WWII, and also left office with a budget surplus.  Why do you Republican retards try to deny that?

Let's look at reality, every Budget proposal from the White House that went to Capital Hill for the Budget Years 1994 to 1998 averaged $180 billion dollars a year in deficit spending (GAO).   Thankfully the last real conservative Congress met Clinton's nearly $200 billion dollars in proposed DEFICIT spending as far as the eye could see head on.  For the 1995 Budget year, the Republican controlled Congress forced the White House to revise it's proposed budget a record 5 times.  

Thanks to record tax receipts, the .com bomb, record government "trust fund" surpluses which are legally required to take all surpluses and purchase U.S. government securities the United States Government came close to balancing their budget . . . but still every year the National Debt increased, albeit at a much slower rate in 98-99-00.  

When these unified budget numbers are separated into Social Security and non-Social Security components, however, it becomes evident that all of the projected surplus throughout this period is attributable to Social Security. The remainder of the budget will remain in deficit throughout the next decade.

Would Using the Budget Surplus for Tax Cuts or Entitlement Expansions Affect Long-Term Social Security Solvency?
by Kilolo Kijakazi and Wendell Primus 3/13/1998 (Budget and Policy Priorities)

Of the $142 billion surplus projected by the end of 2000, $137 billion will come from excess Social Security taxes

U.S. Gov't Info.com

The surplus deception is clearly discernible in the statistics of national debt. While the spenders are boasting about surpluses, the national debt is rising year after year. In 1998, the first year of the legerdemain surplus, it rose from $5.413 trillion to $5.526 trillion, due to a deficit of $112.9 billion... The federal government spends Social Security money and other trust funds which constitute obligations to present and future recipients. It consumes them and thereby incurs obligations as binding as those to the owners of savings bonds. Yet, the Treasury treats them as revenue and hails them for generating surpluses. If a private banker were to treat trust fund deposits as income and profit, he would face criminal charges



The Impact Today:

With unemployment rising, the payroll tax revenue that finances Social Security benefits for nearly 51 million retirees and other recipients is falling, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, the trust fund's annual surplus is forecast to all but vanish next year -- nearly a decade ahead of schedule -- and deprive the government of billions of dollars it had been counting on to help balance the nation's books....

The Treasury Department has for decades borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund to finance government operations. If it is no longer able to do so, it could be forced to borrow an additional $700 billion over the next decade from China, Japan and other investors. And at some point, perhaps as early as 2017, according to the CBO, the Treasury would have to start repaying the billions it has borrowed from the trust fund over the past 25 years, driving the nation further into debt or forcing Congress to raise taxes. CBS News 9/2009

[Sugar Dick]

For the love of God, 'Pad.  There's a difference between the national budget and the national debt.  Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since WWII, and also left office with a budget surplus.  Why do you Republican retards try to deny that?

who cares if I overleveraged the business, the statement of cash flows was positive and I was able to give everyone a raise!!!

You have to reach a budget surplus before you can pay off the national debt.  Reagan took the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion, yet Republicans basically view him as God. 

People all over the left coast borrowed against the value of their house to increase their personal budgets.  They all had budget surpluses and simultaneously increasing debt loads.  It was nice for the couple years it was sustainable, then they couldn't make their monthly payments, defaulted, and live in an apartment (like you) and won't be able to borrow money for a long time.

Get it?  The national deficit and the budget are like the balance sheet and the income statement.  Both need to look good to say you're doing it right. 

The following numbers are arbitrary:  Budgeting to spend $4T and then only spending $3.8T is a $200B budget surplus (yipee!).  Budgeting to spend $3.1T and spending $3.4T is a $300B budget deficit.  You would argue that the $200B surplus is a step in the right direction.  If revenues are only $2.5T, which one is actually better?  For your sake:  The surplus adds $1,300B to the deficit while the deficit adds $900B.

[AzCat]

[Rather long rant ignoring the topic at hand deleted.]

I'm doing this right, right?

Sadly, no.  Please refer to the subject line and note that the topic of this thread is "Taxing the Rich" and not "The Wise & Benevolent Philosopher Kings of Barack Obama and Ednksu's Regulatory Paradise". 

here go ahead and start here
http://www.legalzoom.com/llc-guide/limited-liability-company-edu-center.html

My sincerest congratulations on your ability to enter the term "LLC" into Google and link to the top sponsored result!  I'm certain that such a formidible ability will take you far in life because, well, not just anybody can do that!   

You still have not, however, shown us the "easy" method you would utilize to avoid the estate tax via "some sort of incorporation/LLC."  I do hope you'll share this information with us, I know several tax lawyers who would be grateful to have such a simple and powerful method at their disposal.  But, since you haven't even managed to successfully Google the rather trivial valid response I teed up for you, I shan't be waiting with bated breath for you to put forth something with actual merit. (This would be a really opportune time for you to just admit what we all already know: you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.) 

(thanks for taking this discussion and driving it into the ground.  I'll just assume that you now agree with all my points on regulation since you didn't respond)
((in reality if you responded I would just do what you do and say I'm right and youre wrong with not justification))

Do feel free to start a thread about the wonders of the regulatory state, I'll be happy to repond to you there as time permits. 

[Jeffy]

[Rather long rant ignoring the topic at hand deleted.]

I'm doing this right, right?

Sadly, no.  Please refer to the subject line and note that the topic of this thread is "Taxing the Rich" and not "The Wise & Benevolent Philosopher Kings of Barack Obama and Ednksu's Regulatory Paradise". 

here go ahead and start here
http://www.legalzoom.com/llc-guide/limited-liability-company-edu-center.html

My sincerest congratulations on your ability to enter the term "LLC" into Google and link to the top sponsored result!  I'm certain that such a formidible ability will take you far in life because, well, not just anybody can do that!   

You still have not, however, shown us the "easy" method you would utilize to avoid the estate tax via "some sort of incorporation/LLC."  I do hope you'll share this information with us, I know several tax lawyers who would be grateful to have such a simple and powerful method at their disposal.  But, since you haven't even managed to successfully Google the rather trivial valid response I teed up for you, I shan't be waiting with bated breath for you to put forth something with actual merit. (This would be a really opportune time for you to just admit what we all already know: you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.) 

(thanks for taking this discussion and driving it into the ground.  I'll just assume that you now agree with all my points on regulation since you didn't respond)
((in reality if you responded I would just do what you do and say I'm right and youre wrong with not justification))

Do feel free to start a thread about the wonders of the regulatory state, I'll be happy to repond to you there as time permits. 

I found one of those "easy" ways to avoid an estate tax.

http://www.fairtax.org

[OregonSmock]

For the love of God, 'Pad.  There's a difference between the national budget and the national debt.  Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since WWII, and also left office with a budget surplus.  Why do you Republican retards try to deny that?

who cares if I overleveraged the business, the statement of cash flows was positive and I was able to give everyone a raise!!!

You have to reach a budget surplus before you can pay off the national debt.  Reagan took the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion, yet Republicans basically view him as God. 

People all over the left coast borrowed against the value of their house to increase their personal budgets.  They all had budget surpluses and simultaneously increasing debt loads.  It was nice for the couple years it was sustainable, then they couldn't make their monthly payments, defaulted, and live in an apartment (like you) and won't be able to borrow money for a long time.

Get it?  The national deficit and the budget are like the balance sheet and the income statement.  Both need to look good to say you're doing it right. 

The following numbers are arbitrary:  Budgeting to spend $4T and then only spending $3.8T is a $200B budget surplus (yipee!).  Budgeting to spend $3.1T and spending $3.4T is a $300B budget deficit.  You would argue that the $200B surplus is a step in the right direction.  If revenues are only $2.5T, which one is actually better?  For your sake:  The surplus adds $1,300B to the deficit while the deficit adds $900B.

Do you have any knowledge of how the economy works?  Serious question.

[Sugar Dick]

For the love of God, 'Pad.  There's a difference between the national budget and the national debt.  Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since WWII, and also left office with a budget surplus.  Why do you Republican retards try to deny that?

who cares if I overleveraged the business, the statement of cash flows was positive and I was able to give everyone a raise!!!

You have to reach a budget surplus before you can pay off the national debt.  Reagan took the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion, yet Republicans basically view him as God. 

People all over the left coast borrowed against the value of their house to increase their personal budgets.  They all had budget surpluses and simultaneously increasing debt loads.  It was nice for the couple years it was sustainable, then they couldn't make their monthly payments, defaulted, and live in an apartment (like you) and won't be able to borrow money for a long time.

Get it?  The national deficit and the budget are like the balance sheet and the income statement.  Both need to look good to say you're doing it right. 

The following numbers are arbitrary:  Budgeting to spend $4T and then only spending $3.8T is a $200B budget surplus (yipee!).  Budgeting to spend $3.1T and spending $3.4T is a $300B budget deficit.  You would argue that the $200B surplus is a step in the right direction.  If revenues are only $2.5T, which one is actually better?  For your sake:  The surplus adds $1,300B to the deficit while the deficit adds $900B.

You're right, I'm a dumbass.

I know

[Sugar Dick]

Read this in the hilarious Sherman Zingler thread, thought it fit nicely over here (for my purposes only)

Pfffffttttttttt....  KU just completed over $100 million in upgrades to various athletic facilities over the past couple of years.  KU's endowment is like five times larger than K-State's (who has the smallest in the Big 12).


 

Correct, dumbass.  Those $100 million in upgrades were funded by debt and donations that have been yanked away by the donors getting thrown in jail.

You know, Ben, when you borrow money, you have to pay it back.  It's kind of hard to do that when 15K show up to football games that you've basically given the tickets away for free.

BMW's use of the is his strongest skill, imo.

[Dave Wooderson]

For the love of God, 'Pad.  There's a difference between the national budget and the national debt.  Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since WWII, and also left office with a budget surplus.  Why do you Republican retards try to deny that?

You have no idea who has the powers of the purse and the powers to tax in the three branches of government.  What the eff did they teach you at KU? 

[Sugar Dick]

For the love of God, 'Pad.  There's a difference between the national budget and the national debt.  Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since WWII, and also left office with a budget surplus.  Why do you Republican retards try to deny that?

You have no idea who has the powers of the purse and the powers to tax in the three branches of government.  What the eff did they teach you at KU? 

[OregonSmock]

For the love of God, 'Pad.  There's a difference between the national budget and the national debt.  Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since WWII, and also left office with a budget surplus.  Why do you Republican retards try to deny that?

You have no idea who has the powers of the purse and the powers to tax in the three branches of government.  What the eff did they teach you at KU? 

wut