.... 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

"Ignoramus15939" wrote in message
...
... 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


Inheritance powder anyone ?

Best Regards
Tom.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:23:52 -0500, 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

That's a big owie, but maximizing the value of my estate for heirs
wouldn't motivate me to die sooner than I might otherwise choose to.
They're all well-educated and quite self-sufficient.

I don't fear death at all, have faced it many times without flinching.
There may come a day when I'll welcome it and wish it'd hurry up but
I'm not there yet.

We'd rather die with a nickel left. We'd better get busy.

To quote the Jagerkin "Ja. So die already!"

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

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
- Have heirs to inherit my assets

Until both of those are true it is of little relevance to me.

On 7/13/2010 2:42 AM, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:23:52 -0500, 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

That's a big owie, but maximizing the value of my estate for heirs
wouldn't motivate me to die sooner than I might otherwise choose to.
They're all well-educated and quite self-sufficient.

I don't fear death at all, have faced it many times without flinching.
There may come a day when I'll welcome it and wish it'd hurry up but
I'm not there yet.

We'd rather die with a nickel left. We'd better get busy.

Oh, booh, hooh, somebody with a million bucks has to pay tax on the
amount over that.

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.

- Have heirs to inherit my assets

Until both of those are true it is of little relevance to me.

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".

i

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."

Wayne

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".

i
===========
http://files.ali-aba.org/thumbs/data...ssi._thumb.pdf
http://www.1800probate.com/resources...tance-tax.html
http://www.willsandprobate.com/FAQ.htm
http://www.estateattorney.com/basicfet.htm
http://www.savewealth.com/planning/estate/dynasty/

and a whole bunch more.

Also see the legal term mortmain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortmain
and the overturning of the "rule against perpetuities"
http://www.cardozolawreview.com/Past...IS.WEBSITE.PDF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
http://www.ncestateplanningblog.com/...uities-upheld/


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

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

"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
- Have heirs to inherit my assets

Until both of those are true it is of little relevance to me.


I worry because my brother in law and my sister work for a firm that is valued over 1
million dollars. If the owners die, the business might not survive taxation. Same thing
for that nice quiet farm next door, the heirs might have to sell it to raise tax money.
Next thing I know, there is a housing development going in and I'm living in the city
instead of the country.

It matters.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:00:38 -0500, Ignoramus3537
wrote:

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

What? Lets see the rich/wealthy can get around it if the pay up to
one of their class, but the lowers gotta pay and you don't mind?

Hell you get taxed to make it and to spend it adds up to 40%+
Happen to know how much they tax gas?

What is the slope, you brought it up.

In all probability I won't get a dime from the last of the last, but
if I did and say the object was worth $10,000. I'd have to come up
with a 1/3rd just to keep it in the family.

Come on, what about the King Ranch in Texas? They been coming through
this tax surf all this time?

SW

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 7/13/2010 2:42 AM, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:23:52 -0500, 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

That's a big owie, but maximizing the value of my estate for heirs
wouldn't motivate me to die sooner than I might otherwise choose to.
They're all well-educated and quite self-sufficient.

I don't fear death at all, have faced it many times without flinching.
There may come a day when I'll welcome it and wish it'd hurry up but
I'm not there yet.

We'd rather die with a nickel left. We'd better get busy.

Oh, booh, hooh, somebody with a million bucks has to pay tax on the amount
over that.



A million dollar estate is not that big anymore. You paid taxes when you
earned the money. and the death tax was implemented for 3 people. And was
$300k when the average family made about $1k a year. Was to stop financial
ruler class. Carnegie, Rockefeller, and name of 3rd one slips my brain. If
you own a house, in most metropolitan areas, you are close to having a
million dollar estate with any savings at all.

"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:00:38 -0500, Ignoramus3537
wrote:

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

What? Lets see the rich/wealthy can get around it if the pay up to
one of their class, but the lowers gotta pay and you don't mind?

Hell you get taxed to make it and to spend it adds up to 40%+
Happen to know how much they tax gas?

What is the slope, you brought it up.

In all probability I won't get a dime from the last of the last, but
if I did and say the object was worth $10,000. I'd have to come up
with a 1/3rd just to keep it in the family.

Come on, what about the King Ranch in Texas? They been coming through
this tax surf all this time?

SW

How much tax did the Kennedy's pay on Joes money? On any of the kids
estates? Great estate lawyers!

On 7/14/2010 11:32 PM, Califbill wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 7/13/2010 2:42 AM, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:23:52 -0500, 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


That's a big owie, but maximizing the value of my estate for heirs
wouldn't motivate me to die sooner than I might otherwise choose to.
They're all well-educated and quite self-sufficient.

I don't fear death at all, have faced it many times without flinching.
There may come a day when I'll welcome it and wish it'd hurry up but
I'm not there yet.

We'd rather die with a nickel left. We'd better get busy.

Oh, booh, hooh, somebody with a million bucks has to pay tax on the
amount over that.



A million dollar estate is not that big anymore. You paid taxes when you
earned the money. and the death tax was implemented for 3 people. And
was $300k when the average family made about $1k a year. Was to stop
financial ruler class. Carnegie, Rockefeller, and name of 3rd one slips
my brain. If you own a house, in most metropolitan areas, you are close
to having a million dollar estate with any savings at all.

The trials and tribulations of rich people.

On 7/14/2010 8:32 PM, Califbill wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 7/13/2010 2:42 AM, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:23:52 -0500, 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


That's a big owie, but maximizing the value of my estate for heirs
wouldn't motivate me to die sooner than I might otherwise choose to.
They're all well-educated and quite self-sufficient.

I don't fear death at all, have faced it many times without flinching.
There may come a day when I'll welcome it and wish it'd hurry up but
I'm not there yet.

We'd rather die with a nickel left. We'd better get busy.

Oh, booh, hooh, somebody with a million bucks has to pay tax on the
amount over that.



A million dollar estate is not that big anymore. You paid taxes when you
earned the money. and the death tax was implemented for 3 people. And
was $300k when the average family made about $1k a year. Was to stop
financial ruler class. Carnegie, Rockefeller, and name of 3rd one slips
my brain. If you own a house, in most metropolitan areas, you are close
to having a million dollar estate with any savings at all.



Sorry but you're facts are incorrect. All you have to do is check the
statistics on how many people leave estates of a million dollars or
more. It's a very low number. Only a few per cent of the population.
While lots of people own property in urban areas that used to be worth
hundreds of thousands of dollars, in most places the value of that real
estate has dropped dramatically. Besides that, most people who die with
a nice house don't own them. They have mortgages and these days the
equity in many homes is not so much any more. Then if you look at all
the people who owe more than their homes are worth and all the people in
the middle of the country whose houses are only worth 100K or so you
start to realize that there aren't many people with a million in assets
to leave behind. Which just proves what I have said many times, most
Americans are financial failures. After a lifetime of work they have a
house if they are lucky, and if they don't have a house the number of
people who have a million dollars in real investment grade assets is
less than 2%. So when you look at the reality it's like the song says,
in the land of milk and honey you must put them on the table. Sadly,
even after working all your life only a lucky few have even one million
to leave to their kids. So welcome to reality folks. You will have to
work hard but you will never have that much to show for it.

Hawke

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)

That's just plain wrong. The tax savings from setting up trusts to avoid
estate taxes are well worth the time and money you spend to set them up.
Unless you don't consider spending a matter of thousands to save
millions to be worth the effort.



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).

You don't get the tax benefits from tax write offs from giving gifts to
kids and grandchildren. That amounts to peanuts. You save the money by
protecting your estate from paying estate taxes. Which are big.


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.

Totally untrue. If someone with a ten million dollar estate has no
estate planning they lose 5.5 million of the value of the estate right
off the top. By estate planning you can cut that by millions. So I would
say it's far easier to keep a few million by estate planning than by
giving it to the government any day.

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

Here's the problem with estates. First off, most people have none and so
they don't leave jack **** to their kids. Then you have the estates
worth a few million, say from between two and twenty-five million. That
is where most estates fall, in that category. Then you have the really
rich who are worth hundreds of millions and billions. For them the 55%
seems fair but it could be even higher than that for someone with an
estate like Steinbrenner, which is like 500 million. If you took 75%
there would still be 125 million to give to people who didn't earn a
cent of it. If he had a dozen heirs they would all still get 12.5
million and double that if there was only 6. I don't know about you but
I wouldn't bitch about getting that kind of money for nothing. That sets
up just about the whole family to be multimillionaires for life. Most
Americans don't think that is fair giving some people so much to start
life with.
Then you have the problem of the people with the little estates worth
2-25 million. You take half of them in taxes and you don't have much to
divide after that. So the solution is that the small estates of say 1-10
million you don't tax at all and then from there you progressively tax
higher and higher until you are taking 90% from the mega wealthy.


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.


Hey, we all want a large estate. Unfortunately, it's like going to
Vegas. Only a lucky few get what they hoped for. What would be nice is
for most people to be able to make enough to leave a nice bonus for
their kids to make their lives better. Leaving them with mega millions
usually isn't good for anyone. But since something like 98% of Americans
don't leave any estate worth mentioning we don't really have to worry
about it, do we? But when so many have no estate at all why do some
people call it a "death tax"? when it only applies to the 2% with lots
of money? Could it be they are just using that term for an ulterior
motive? Since it's always republicans calling it this you know it's a
con and nothing else.

Hawke