On 2010-07-13, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:49:30 -0500, Ignoramus3537
wrote:

On 2010-07-13, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
Ignoramus15939 wrote:
... because this year there is no estate tax, and next year it will be
55% after 1 million.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...928371574.html

I'll worry about that when I:

- Have over $1M in assets

Don't fall into "Joe the wanna-be plumber" syndrome here...

When you have over $1M in unshielded assets.

What do you mean by "unshielded assets".

Trusts, perhaps. A friend told me he'd spent quite a bit to organize
his holdings so that they'd flow mostly tax-free to his kids. I don't
know any of the details.

A quick google brought up this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/bu.../09estate.html "Elaborate
estate plans with sophisticated trusts are often made many years
before death to reduce estate taxes owed by the richest."

As far as I understand this, setting up trusts may be useful for the
benefit of the heirs, but does not yield tax benefits that are
commensurate with the efforts to set them up. (unless outright
illegalities are committed that are easy to prove)

People with modest assets (a few mils) can get quite a bit of tax
benefits by giving kids and grandkids annual gifts, cash etc, buying
stuff for them like washing machines and TVs and whatnot (which,
strictly speaking, should be reported too, but can be hidden up to
some amount).

For people with a lot of money (tens of millions), those things do not
amount to much, and it is easier to simply pay the ****ing tax than to
set up weird trusts.

Estate tax is totally fair, though the exact amount could be debated.
55% seems excessive. 35 to 45% seems perfect to me.

I would love nothing better than to have a large estate, leave part of
it to my kids, and return a bit to the society to which I owe so much.

i