Estate taxes
By TheRealDawn
@dawnald (85146)
Shingle Springs, California
October 19, 2009 1:51pm CST
Sorry, my mind is not in a funny mood today. Maybe it needs to wake up.
Subject is estate taxes.
I did a little reading on estate taxes in the US. According to the FAQs I read on a few sites, the main point of it is to capture capital gains that haven't been previously taxed. Not to take away mama's hard earned savings and give it to the government. Did a little more reading and I see that the Federal estate tax is for estates above $3,500,000 and that California no longer has an estate tax. Still, if your estate exceeds the limit, good old Uncle Sam wants 45%.
Actually after playing around with some of the calculators on the internet, I'm just confused. Math not my greatest strength. Also, the calculators don't explain how they arrived at their result. :-)
But what do you think of estate taxes? Do you think they're OK above a certain limit? Is the capital gains thing a valid reason for an estate tax? Is there any reason why mega super wealthy people should not be allowed to pass their estate on to their heirs without getting clobbered?
Reaching for flak jacket...
5 people like this
10 responses
@ANTIQUELADY (36440)
• United States
19 Oct 09
I think people should be able to leave their estate to whoever w/out the goverment sticking their nose in it. I don't think the goverment is due a damn thing. Peple work all their lives to require things & of course want to leave their children all they can. why should the goverment get part of it??
@TheGreatWhiteBuffalo (4822)
• United States
19 Oct 09
There is a caveat and that is what will keep a nation strong? What will make a nation stronger?
It comes off and is a redistribution of wealth at that it is only a percentage of wealth, and at the same time there are other things to consider...
one is how the wealth was acquired... You have capital gains on a growth of assets or you have a sudden gain such as winning the lottery how should each type of gain be taxed and at what rate?
I could open up a whole new can of worms on this one... :)
2 people like this
@babyangie27 (5176)
• United States
19 Oct 09
Well I know for Michigan it has to be worth more than $1 million if I remember right. Mind you that was in 2005,and I agree it is like reading threw gibberish trying to figure it all out. The whole estate taxes thing makes and made my head hurt good luck my friend.
@TheGreatWhiteBuffalo (4822)
• United States
19 Oct 09
Oh' you need a good ole' hot bowl of Chilli first! Better yet do the Chilli with a Philly Cheesteak and then the Cheesecake... Yum!
2 people like this
@babyangie27 (5176)
• United States
19 Oct 09
yum thanks hun and save some for yourself as well.
2 people like this
@cobrateacher (8432)
• United States
19 Oct 09
Frankly, D., they seem rather obscene to me. They're not taxes on your earnings, but on your gifts to survivors. It just doesn't seem right at all!
2 people like this
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
19 Oct 09
The only time they are taxes on your earnings (if I'm even understanding this correctly) is if something you are leaving to somebody has appreciated in value. So if you bought your house for $100k and it is now worth $400k, the increase in the value of the house can be taxed just like it could if you sold it.
2 people like this
@cobrateacher (8432)
• United States
19 Oct 09
I still think a person should be able to give an unencumbered gift!
2 people like this
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
19 Oct 09
Mixed feelings...
If I have to pay those taxes if I sell the house, why shouldn't I have to pay them if I die?
@andy77e (5156)
• United States
25 Oct 09
Estate taxes are a rather good idea. The purpose is to make sure that family property is not passed on from generation to generation, from parent to child, to prevent any of the lower class from ever getting wealthy, or to wipe out whatever wealth the middle class acquires, before either present competition to those who are wealthy.
Oh, sorry... that's the effect, not purpose.
The purpose is to prevent a family from gathering so much money as to become a national dynasty that is only powerful because of the nearly unlimited financial resources that maintain the families economic power and status.
One success has been the Kennedys, which have have been prevented from having unprecedented economic and political power after 4 generations, with now Caroline Kennedy only being worth a mere $400 Million, plus unknown amounts in blind trusts.
Another success would be the Rockefellers with Jay Rockefeller being a mere Senator with a net worth of only a minuscule $126 Million dollars, not including the Rockefeller family trusts which hold nearly $110 Billion dollars by last estimates.
Just imagine how much these people would have if we didn't have Estate taxes....
Meanwhile, a couple of sisters, earning $30K a year here in Ohio, recently were forced to sell their families farm, which had been in the family for 3 generations when their great great grandfather built it. The estate tax was $10 Million dollars. We wouldn't want a person being able to keep a multi-million dollar family estate when they are poor middle class working families! Thankfully, we can force them to sell it, and collect that lower-class money, for the good of the poor. Namely the poor we just created forcing them to lose their wealth.
I'm sure you caught the sarcasm from my post. Here's my view, regardless of whatever rational you use to support the estate tax, the effect is vastly different from the purpose.
Rich people have the money and ability to hide their wealth in ways the poor can not. The rich and buy up tax sheltered assets. Use tax credits like wind mills and solar panels. Move money to off shore accounts, use blind trusts, and many other tax shelter systems.
The people who can't protect themselves, are the poor and middle class... namely us. We don't have the funds, or the ability to play these games. We can't hire a high dollar accounting firm to open Swiss bank accounts, or buy $800 thousand dollar wind mills to use a tax shelters for our estate. So we get nailed, and the rich get off free, like the Kennedys and Rockefellers. So why do we keep shooting ourselves in the foot? Let's end these taxes that end up hurting us, and stop pretending "this is for the super mega wealthy!".
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
27 Oct 09
Yeah I got the sarcasm about midway through the first paragraph. lol
Let's end these taxes that end up hurting us, and stop pretending "this is for the super mega wealthy!
The above probably wouldn't only apply to estate taxes...
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
29 Oct 09
and I don't know about you, but I'm not getting there very fast...
@andy77e (5156)
• United States
28 Oct 09
Oh of course not. That is the biggest scam of the entire liberal belief system is that taxes only effect the "super mega wealthy".
It's funny that no one questions why the "super mega wealthy" always support taxes on themselves. Of course the answer is, they know it won't really hurt them, only those trying to get as wealthy as they are.
Obama himself was/is in the top 1% of wage earners. Does anyone thing that when he talks about raising taxes on the super wealthy, he really means himself? Of course not. He knows his money is wrapped up in blind trusts and other tax shelters. The people that will pay those taxes, are people like us trying to become wealthy.
1 person likes this
@Zenstrive (237)
• Indonesia
19 Oct 09
Taxes are there because the government is inefficient and can not think other mean of raising revenue than extorting their people. They are the softer version of the mafia.
2 people like this
@Zenstrive (237)
• Indonesia
19 Oct 09
Well, sometimes, if it involve other countries and capital investments and oil and such, but most of the times they simply send you a letter whilst the mafia will send you a horse head on a pillow.
2 people like this
@357615220 (5)
• China
19 Oct 09
Although I do not understand U.S law, but I understand the world a general rule,the Government will put the needs of the community laws, but the interests of the people touched by the law similarly come up with new ways to deal with the law.
2 people like this
@TheGreatWhiteBuffalo (4822)
• United States
19 Oct 09
International law is above the Law of the United States is above the Law of the State is above the Law of the County, is above the law of the local municipality...
Now which law contradicts the other?
1 person likes this
@TheGreatWhiteBuffalo (4822)
• United States
19 Oct 09
I see nothing wrong with the elite having to share among family and the government. I do have a problem when the elite control the government to take away from the poor to fill the coffers of the elite houses.
There is a self destructive force at work... Maybe the elite don't quite get it yet??? What do you think?
1 person likes this
@TheGreatWhiteBuffalo (4822)
• United States
19 Oct 09
Hmmm? Who is running our government? Looks at list of names and how much of the wealth that each one controls... Hmmmm? Who is the poorest person either in the Senate or the House of Representatives and how does their wealth compare to the average American???
Sounds like a quest for knowledge... How poor is poor? What actually constitutes a person as poor?
Wealth and accumulated assets clearly define who is Elite...
Me? A problem with and for our Government? You don't think, really do ya? Why would I be a problem? Oh' I know, I have this story to share... Did you hear the latest???
I have the hope for change to help the poor get back on their feet, in order to stop the corruption in the system. Did you see what happened to me???
1 person likes this
@scarlet_woman (23463)
• United States
22 Oct 09
hmm..i think i'm in no worry of owing at that rate
eh..some of the mega rich who own multiple homes can easily absorb it if they make that much.45% of 3 mil isn't really than much to someone of say bill gates' wealth.
is it right? no,not necessarily..but in some ways i think it's a luxury tax hiding as an estate tax.
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
22 Oct 09
It starts at 3.5 million. Bill Gates would theoretically have to pay 45% of billions. Except he has no doubt found ways to put it all into tax shelters and his estate won't end up paying anything.
@Hatley (163776)
• Garden Grove, California
20 Oct 09
hi dawnald guess I am just plain out of sympathy tonight
as when I think of people who have estates above three and
a half million dollars, I do not weep tears if they take
a big hunk of their assests. I mean when i retired the Irs took a big chunk out of my 11,000 dollars, almost one thousand dollars.
'for working for 23 years, so no no sAd tears if Uncle Sam takes 45 percent of their assets. Dawn no dont reach for the flak jacket I m not going to clobber you at all.
1 person likes this
@6precious102 (4043)
• United States
23 Oct 09
Personally, I believe the government is greedy and would like to be the owner of everything so we're under their total control.
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
23 Oct 09
or the corporations that really run the government are greedy...