On 7/31/2010 12:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On 7/31/2010 3:08 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
"J. on Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:52:51
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 7/30/2010 10:42 PM, ATP wrote:
id wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-31, wrote:
id wrote:
On 2010-07-31, wrote:
id wrote
On 2010-07-30, pyotr wrote:
Nope. An Estate Tax (or to call it more properly a Death Tax) is
why we get Paris Hilton. She knows she's not going to inherit it,
her Daddy knows she's not going to inherit, so why not spend
it as much
as possible now, before it goes tot he tax man.

Excuse me?

Do you have a clue as to what you are talking about?

Transferring money to anyone (such as heir) as a gift, while
alive,
subjects them to gift tax, which is very similar (and is
designed to
supplant) estate tax.

Getting money from daddy when daddy is alive, is generally
taxed the
same way as when daddy is dead.

I'd be surprised if the full value of the services, transportation,
clothing etcetera consumed by Paris Hilton is accounted for and
taxed.

Do you mean that what her dad pays for her clothing, is not taxed
with
gift tax?

Good question.

Staying at family compounds, buying on family charge accounts,
payments
for bogus services, staff on family payroll, there are probably a
lot of ways
to prop up her lifestyle without gift taxes.

Hard to say, my guess is that she is too high profile to hide that
sort of thing.

i

Most of it is probably legal. Staying at your Dad's house or summer
home is
not taxable. What if your family has five homes/complexes? While you're
there you have use of the family vehicles, servants, club
memberships....supplement that with some carefully crafted trust
fund money
and earnings- she's rich without large taxable transfers.

Even if it's taxed, the tax doesn't take all of it. You people act like
someone ending up with a hundred million dollars out of a 200 million
dollar estate is impoverished or something.

And you act as if having the government take half of what you
saved and earned over the course of your life is not a bad thing.

Well, I'd feel a lot worse about if if it meant that somebody was going
to miss meals as a result of it.

Some people behave as if something is okay, as long as it involves
large amounts of money.

When you're working for a living it's hard to develop much sympathy for
anybody who doesn't have to.


That's not what I'm hearing. I hear a lot of defense of the heirs of
estates who are going to cash in on somebody else's work and will get to
live the high life and never have to work. There seems to be a lot of
sympathy for the people who supposedly are owed millions just because
daddy made lots of bucks. Nobody is entitled to anything in my book. You
start off with nothing and your life is your chance to get ahead. Why
should some people get to start life on third base? I agree that you
would think working people would not sympathize with heirs of estates
worth millions. But here we are hearing the right wing guys defending
giving some people the right to live like kings when they did nothing to
earn it. Seems like more right wing inconsistency to me.

Hawke