"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it’s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/

Interesting comments on working at HF

http://www.jobvent.com/harbor-freigh...or%20freig ht

On 2010-07-29, RBnDFW wrote:
"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it?s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/

Interesting comments on working at HF

http://www.jobvent.com/harbor-freigh...or%20freig ht

what a ****ing loser

On 7/29/2010 4:53 PM, Ignoramus5687 wrote:
On 2010-07-29, wrote:
"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it?s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/

Interesting comments on working at HF

http://www.jobvent.com/harbor-freigh...or%20freig ht

what a ****ing loser

That's just corporate America today - total ****ing GREED!

--
Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny.
Kin Hubbard

Ignoramus5687 wrote:
On 2010-07-29, RBnDFW wrote:
"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it?s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/

Interesting comments on working at HF

http://www.jobvent.com/harbor-freigh...or%20freig ht

what a ****ing loser

My sentiments exactly

RBnDFW wrote:

"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it’s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/


Assuming above story is factually correct, this is one of the few times I approve of post
term abortion


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

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it’s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/

Interesting comments on working at HF

http://www.jobvent.com/harbor-freigh...or%20freig ht

I was just at HF today, and there is a huge sale poster in the window.

FOUNDERS' DAY SALE.

ROFL.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:43:22 -0400, Wes
wrote the following:

RBnDFW wrote:

"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it’s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/

Assuming above story is factually correct, this is one of the few times I approve of post
term abortion

ROTFLSHIAPMP! Megadittoes.

--
It is pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness;
poverty and wealth have both failed.
-- Kin Hubbard

On 2010-07-30, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:43:22 -0400, Wes
wrote the following:

RBnDFW wrote:

"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it?s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/

Assuming above story is factually correct, this is one of the few times I approve of post
term abortion

ROTFLSHIAPMP! Megadittoes.


This is also a good example why estate tax is a good idea. Just
because his son was made from his sperm, does not automatically make
him most qualified to run the business or "worthy" of being able to
command as much as his dad did.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:30:52 -0500, Ignoramus5687
wrote the following:

On 2010-07-30, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:43:22 -0400, Wes
wrote the following:

RBnDFW wrote:

"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it?s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/

Assuming above story is factually correct, this is one of the few times I approve of post
term abortion

ROTFLSHIAPMP! Megadittoes.


This is also a good example why estate tax is a good idea. Just
because his son was made from his sperm, does not automatically make
him most qualified to run the business or "worthy" of being able to
command as much as his dad did.

You're more of a liberal than I'd realized, Ig.
Heartfelt condolences, sir.

How on Earth can being a dick qualify a person for an extra tax on
money their parents already paid tax on, and the heir will pay more
local taxes on when they spend it? And why should I, not a dick,
qualify for this tax?

WTF? Why should bad or stupid business practices on his part result
in taxes on your and my parts?

Wake up, Ig. You're on a bad (democrat) trip, duuuuuude.

--
To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage or of principle.
-- Confucius

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:39:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:30:52 -0500, Ignoramus5687
wrote the following:

On 2010-07-30, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:43:22 -0400, Wes
wrote the following:

RBnDFW wrote:

"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it?s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/

Assuming above story is factually correct, this is one of the few times I approve of post
term abortion

ROTFLSHIAPMP! Megadittoes.


This is also a good example why estate tax is a good idea. Just
because his son was made from his sperm, does not automatically make
him most qualified to run the business or "worthy" of being able to
command as much as his dad did.

You're more of a liberal than I'd realized, Ig.
Heartfelt condolences, sir.

How on Earth can being a dick qualify a person for an extra tax on
money their parents already paid tax on, and the heir will pay more
local taxes on when they spend it? And why should I, not a dick,
qualify for this tax?

WTF? Why should bad or stupid business practices on his part result
in taxes on your and my parts?

Wake up, Ig. You're on a bad (democrat) trip, duuuuuude.

If you assume that estate tax paid reduces the taxes you'll pay when
you're alive it might be a good thing. If you're cynical and assume it
will just support additional spending, then it's not.

If the estate pays 50% tax on an amount that is 3x as big as it would
otherwise be, then they're ahead. Skimming off a few percent more or
less every year can make an enormous compounded difference over time
to a business.

Ignoramus5687 wrote:
On 2010-07-30, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:43:22 -0400, Wes
wrote the following:

RBnDFW wrote:

"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it?s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/
Assuming above story is factually correct, this is one of the few times I approve of post
term abortion
ROTFLSHIAPMP! Megadittoes.


This is also a good example why estate tax is a good idea. Just
because his son was made from his sperm, does not automatically make
him most qualified to run the business or "worthy" of being able to
command as much as his dad did.

So you think the government is the better heir?

On 07/29/2010 01:31 PM, RBnDFW wrote:
"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it’s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/


Interesting comments on working at HF

http://www.jobvent.com/harbor-freigh...or%20freig ht

This is but one of the ways that a family-owned business can hit the
rocks when control passes from generation to generation. Just because
Mom or Dad or Uncle or Aunt has business skills doesn't mean that Son,
Daughter, Niece or Nephew does.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

On 2010-07-30, RBnDFW wrote:
Ignoramus5687 wrote:
On 2010-07-30, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:43:22 -0400, Wes
wrote the following:

RBnDFW wrote:

"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it?s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/
Assuming above story is factually correct, this is one of the few times I approve of post
term abortion
ROTFLSHIAPMP! Megadittoes.


This is also a good example why estate tax is a good idea. Just
because his son was made from his sperm, does not automatically make
him most qualified to run the business or "worthy" of being able to
command as much as his dad did.

So you think the government is the better heir?

Maybe it is not "better", but it prevents or at least reduces
perpetual dynasties that have nothing to do with merit.

i

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:14:18 -0500, Ignoramus18915
wrote the following:

On 2010-07-30, RBnDFW wrote:
Ignoramus5687 wrote:
On 2010-07-30, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:43:22 -0400, Wes
wrote the following:

RBnDFW wrote:

"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it?s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/
Assuming above story is factually correct, this is one of the few times I approve of post
term abortion
ROTFLSHIAPMP! Megadittoes.


This is also a good example why estate tax is a good idea. Just
because his son was made from his sperm, does not automatically make
him most qualified to run the business or "worthy" of being able to
command as much as his dad did.

So you think the government is the better heir?

Maybe it is not "better", but it prevents or at least reduces
perpetual dynasties that have nothing to do with merit.

So to prevent or reduce 3 dynasties, you'll charge half the estate
value to each and every heir of non-dynastic estates? Not at all
better, Ig.

--
To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage or of principle.
-- Confucius

Ignoramus5687 on Fri, 30 Jul 2010
02:30:52 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 2010-07-30, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:43:22 -0400, Wes
wrote the following:

RBnDFW wrote:

"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it?s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/

Assuming above story is factually correct, this is one of the few times I approve of post
term abortion

ROTFLSHIAPMP! Megadittoes.


This is also a good example why estate tax is a good idea. Just
because his son was made from his sperm, does not automatically make
him most qualified to run the business or "worthy" of being able to
command as much as his dad did.

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.
That Smidt's kid is an arshole does not mean that the rest of us
should pay for it. Pass an Asshole Tax, but spendthrifts are, in
their own way, "good for the economy" They provide entertainment for
the masses, and employment for many. Accountants, Lawyers, Bail
bondsmen, car salesmen, car repairmen, liquor & wine sails, doctors,
nurses, tabloid publishers, not to mention the sycophants, toadies and
hangers on that make up the entourage.

That the boy probably needs a good spanking goes without saying.
But lets leave the government out of this.


==
pyotr filipivich
"We are today in the most literal sense a lawless society, for our law
has ceased to be law and become instead its opposite -- mere force at the
disposal of whoever is at the controls." Charles A. Reich, _Peters Quotations_, (c) 1977.

Ignoramus18915 on Fri, 30 Jul
2010 10:14:18 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 2010-07-30, RBnDFW wrote:
Ignoramus5687 wrote:
On 2010-07-30, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:43:22 -0400, Wes
wrote the following:

RBnDFW wrote:

"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it?s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/
Assuming above story is factually correct, this is one of the few times I approve of post
term abortion
ROTFLSHIAPMP! Megadittoes.


This is also a good example why estate tax is a good idea. Just
because his son was made from his sperm, does not automatically make
him most qualified to run the business or "worthy" of being able to
command as much as his dad did.

So you think the government is the better heir?

Maybe it is not "better", but it prevents or at least reduces
perpetual dynasties that have nothing to do with merit.

If only it did. The reality is that the tax laws are set up in
just such a manner as to allow the really rich (Joseph Kennedy) to
pass the money down to the next generation and escape the tax hit of
the death taxes. Trust funds are wonderful things- they save you the
humiliation of having to actually _work_ for a living.
That the Schmidt company is privately held is just another way of
doing the same thing - it is the corporation which makes all the
money, not the 'stock holders'. Heck, lawyers use the trick all the
time - John Edwards drew a modest salary from his law firm, which got
the checks from all the settlements. At the end of the quarter, John
also got a nice dividend, along with all the other stock holders.

There is a saying "dirt to dirt in three generations". That
unless the second generation shows the same drive and skills as the
first one, the third one often finds itself "back on the farm".
Granted, it sometimes takes more than two generations to squander a
great fortune, but ... anybody know how the Vanderbilt are doing? The
Astors, Cabots & Lodges? Henry Ford?

That you don't like inherited wealth doesn't matter. You can give
it all away - and not take the tax deduction.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Ignoramus5687 writes:

On 2010-07-30, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:43:22 -0400, Wes
wrote the following:

RBnDFW wrote:

"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it?s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/

Assuming above story is factually correct, this is one of the few times I approve of post
term abortion

ROTFLSHIAPMP! Megadittoes.


This is also a good example why estate tax is a good idea. Just
because his son was made from his sperm, does not automatically make
him most qualified to run the business or "worthy" of being able to
command as much as his dad did.

If the son had inherited the company upon his father's death, your point
might be worth debating. But inheritence hasn't entered into this
sordid story at all.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)

On 2010-07-30, pyotr filipivich 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.

That Smidt's kid is an arshole does not mean that the rest of us
should pay for it.

Um, if I remember right, you do not have enough assets as to pay
estate tax, right? Why are you including yourself into "the rest of
us"?

If, indeed, your assets do not exceed estate tax deduction, they you
or your heirs would not be "paying".

Only one death out of 200, creates a situation where estate taxes
would be payable (per Warren Buffett, I am sure that he is right).

Pass an Asshole Tax, but spendthrifts are, in their own way, "good
for the economy" They provide entertainment for the masses, and
employment for many. Accountants, Lawyers, Bail bondsmen, car
salesmen, car repairmen, liquor & wine sails, doctors, nurses,
tabloid publishers, not to mention the sycophants, toadies and
hangers on that make up the entourage.

This is an empty argument. Any kind of economic activity has this
nature.

I could hire people to build 20 statues of me. But, while they are
employed to build statues, they would not be doing something more
useful. Or my money could be taxed, and spent by the government to
build 20 missiles, that would be fired at the current enemy of free
world. It is similar in nature also. Just to give you two examples.

That the boy probably needs a good spanking goes without saying.
But lets leave the government out of this.

I do not believe that resources are allocated correctly, if dynasties
of do-nothings maintain full control of assets that they never worked
to create. I would be OK with replacing "full" with "partial", which is
what estate tax accomplishes. It whittles down those dynasties over
the years.

i

Ignoramus18915 wrote:
On 2010-07-30, RBnDFW wrote:
Ignoramus5687 wrote:
On 2010-07-30, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:43:22 -0400, Wes
wrote the following:

RBnDFW wrote:

"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it?s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/
Assuming above story is factually correct, this is one of the few times I approve of post
term abortion
ROTFLSHIAPMP! Megadittoes.

This is also a good example why estate tax is a good idea. Just
because his son was made from his sperm, does not automatically make
him most qualified to run the business or "worthy" of being able to
command as much as his dad did.
So you think the government is the better heir?

Maybe it is not "better", but it prevents or at least reduces
perpetual dynasties that have nothing to do with merit.

Where is the harm to society?
Plenty of poorly run companies. That doesn't mean the government should
nationalize them, in whole or in part.
God knows government isn't efficient at running anything.
In fact, the HF heir behaves most like a typical federal bureaucrat.

Inheritance tax is no answer to anything.

On 2010-07-30, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus18915 on Fri, 30 Jul
2010 10:14:18 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 2010-07-30, RBnDFW wrote:
Ignoramus5687 wrote:
On 2010-07-30, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:43:22 -0400, Wes
wrote the following:

RBnDFW wrote:

"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it?s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/
Assuming above story is factually correct, this is one of the few times I approve of post
term abortion
ROTFLSHIAPMP! Megadittoes.


This is also a good example why estate tax is a good idea. Just
because his son was made from his sperm, does not automatically make
him most qualified to run the business or "worthy" of being able to
command as much as his dad did.

So you think the government is the better heir?

Maybe it is not "better", but it prevents or at least reduces
perpetual dynasties that have nothing to do with merit.

If only it did. The reality is that the tax laws are set up in
just such a manner as to allow the really rich (Joseph Kennedy) to
pass the money down to the next generation and escape the tax hit of
the death taxes. Trust funds are wonderful things- they save you the
humiliation of having to actually _work_ for a living.

It sounds like all you know about estate tax you heard from Rush
Limbaugh. Though estate tax may not apply to you, it helps to know
more about it. Unless the law is changed, estate tax would apply to me
if I and my wife died in 2011, and we drafted wills and did some
amount of estate planning to minimize taxes. That does not make me an
expert, but at least I did some research.

Conveying money to trusts is also subject to taxation, in a way that
just creating a trust does not escape estate tax.

That the Schmidt company is privately held is just another way of
doing the same thing - it is the corporation which makes all the
money, not the 'stock holders'.

Private or not, stockholders get dividends from corporate earnings.

Heck, lawyers use the trick all the time - John Edwards drew a
modest salary from his law firm, which got the checks from all the
settlements. At the end of the quarter, John also got a nice
dividend, along with all the other stock holders.

Even I do this, I pay myself a salary and dividend from my
corporation.

There is a saying "dirt to dirt in three generations". That
unless the second generation shows the same drive and skills as the
first one, the third one often finds itself "back on the farm".
Granted, it sometimes takes more than two generations to squander a
great fortune, but ... anybody know how the Vanderbilt are doing?
The Astors, Cabots & Lodges? Henry Ford?

Rockefellers are doing great. Fords are doing okay too.

http://www.fordforums.com/f349/ford-...rations-39450/

That you don't like inherited wealth doesn't matter. You can give
it all away - and not take the tax deduction.

I would not give anything away until my children are well provided
for.

You live in a Rush Limbaugh fantasy land.

I highly recommend not listening to Rush Limbaugh at all, and trying
to re-establish your grip on reality. I do mean well when I say it, do
not take it as an insult.

i

On 2010-07-30, RBnDFW wrote:
Maybe it is not "better", but it prevents or at least reduces
perpetual dynasties that have nothing to do with merit.

Where is the harm to society?

The plus of being able to pass estate to heirs is that it makes people
work harder and to save more.

The minus of this is that resources are given to people based on
something other than merit.

Let's suppose that we are in the business of making widgets. Say, you
are really good at making them, so you make a fortune in widgets. I
am bad at making widgets, lose out in competition to you, and stay
poor. That's merit based. No complaints here.

Now, if your heir gets a lot of money and is a bum, that's not really
a great allocation of resources.

Estate tax is an attempt to balance the pluses with minuses. Some
amout being taxed, still keeps people interested in becoming wealthy,
but curtails to some extent this resource misallocation.

Plenty of poorly run companies. That doesn't mean the government should
nationalize them, in whole or in part.

I agree.

God knows government isn't efficient at running anything. In fact,
the HF heir behaves most like a typical federal bureaucrat.

Inheritance tax is no answer to anything.

Ignoramus18915 fired this volley in
:

Estate tax is an attempt to balance the pluses with minuses. Some
amout being taxed, still keeps people interested in becoming wealthy,
but curtails to some extent this resource misallocation.

Ig, the estate tax might have some small effect like that, but that's
hardly its purpose. I would love it if that were actually the case, but
that's a utopian's view.

The real reason for the tax is simply that the government saw a nice, fat
pot to skim from, and decided to take a piece. They new darned well if
they took it from the average working stiff who's widow needs the whole
estate just to buy groceries, they'd have a rebellion.

There were no reasons of societal altruism in establishing the estate
tax. It's just another pork pot. Would that it were as you say.

LLoyd

On 2010-07-30, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Ignoramus18915 fired this volley in
:

Estate tax is an attempt to balance the pluses with minuses. Some
amout being taxed, still keeps people interested in becoming wealthy,
but curtails to some extent this resource misallocation.

Ig, the estate tax might have some small effect like that, but that's
hardly its purpose. I would love it if that were actually the case, but
that's a utopian's view.

The real reason for the tax is simply that the government saw a nice, fat
pot to skim from, and decided to take a piece. They new darned well if
they took it from the average working stiff who's widow needs the whole
estate just to buy groceries, they'd have a rebellion.

There were no reasons of societal altruism in establishing the estate
tax. It's just another pork pot. Would that it were as you say.

Lloyd, you may be right about the motivations. You may be more of a
realist than I am. It is a great way to grab some money from the
rich, I agree.

But, I think, the question is, is the effect of that positive or
negative? And I think that at some reasonable level of taxation, it is
positive. Keeps the balance a little bit better.

If the level was too high, it would be negative.

i

Ignoramus18915 wrote:
On 2010-07-30, RBnDFW wrote:
Maybe it is not "better", but it prevents or at least reduces
perpetual dynasties that have nothing to do with merit.
Where is the harm to society?

The plus of being able to pass estate to heirs is that it makes people
work harder and to save more.

The minus of this is that resources are given to people based on
something other than merit.

Let's suppose that we are in the business of making widgets. Say, you
are really good at making them, so you make a fortune in widgets. I
am bad at making widgets, lose out in competition to you, and stay
poor. That's merit based. No complaints here.

Now, if your heir gets a lot of money and is a bum, that's not really
a great allocation of resources.

Estate tax is an attempt to balance the pluses with minuses. Some
amout being taxed, still keeps people interested in becoming wealthy,
but curtails to some extent this resource misallocation.

If it's a family business, I should be able to do whatever I want with
it. I can give it to my MBA daughter or my pet duck. Benefit to society
is irrelevant - it's my business, not the government's.

Say, you sound like one o' them You-Ro-Peens!

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
Ignoramus18915 fired this volley in
:

Estate tax is an attempt to balance the pluses with minuses. Some
amout being taxed, still keeps people interested in becoming wealthy,
but curtails to some extent this resource misallocation.

Ig, the estate tax might have some small effect like that, but that's
hardly its purpose. I would love it if that were actually the case, but
that's a utopian's view.

The real reason for the tax is simply that the government saw a nice, fat
pot to skim from, and decided to take a piece. They new darned well if
they took it from the average working stiff who's widow needs the whole
estate just to buy groceries, they'd have a rebellion.

Remember too the reason the tax was removed. Real estate values grow
over time until a family farmer working his inherited section of land
would live hand to mouth and die a millionaire due to land value. Family
farms were going out of the family just to pay the taxes.

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
Ignoramus18915 fired this volley in
:

Estate tax is an attempt to balance the pluses with minuses. Some
amout being taxed, still keeps people interested in becoming wealthy,
but curtails to some extent this resource misallocation.

Ig, the estate tax might have some small effect like that, but that's
hardly its purpose. I would love it if that were actually the case, but
that's a utopian's view.

The real reason for the tax is simply that the government saw a nice, fat
pot to skim from, and decided to take a piece. They new darned well if
they took it from the average working stiff who's widow needs the whole
estate just to buy groceries, they'd have a rebellion.

There were no reasons of societal altruism in establishing the estate
tax. It's just another pork pot. Would that it were as you say.

LLoyd

In terms of why such taxes were enacted, you're quite right. As for why they
have stuck (on and off since 1797 in the US, and much longer in some
European countries), it's been a common sentiment that heirs have no natural
right to a person's wealth after their death, and that society as a whole
has a stronger claim. In other words, like sin taxes, it's been widely
accepted because most people have agreed that it's fair.

That's been the source of the arguments about it, and other types of
transfer taxes, for hundreds of years. As always with taxes that are not
issued strictly per-capita, a nation's tax structure tends to reflect what
the majority thinks is right and wrong. In a democratic society, going
against that popular opinion can result in one losing the next election.

Now it's a highly contested issue, so it's become one more divisive
political point.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2010-07-30, RBnDFW wrote:
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
Ignoramus18915 fired this volley in
:

Estate tax is an attempt to balance the pluses with minuses. Some
amout being taxed, still keeps people interested in becoming wealthy,
but curtails to some extent this resource misallocation.

Ig, the estate tax might have some small effect like that, but that's
hardly its purpose. I would love it if that were actually the case, but
that's a utopian's view.

The real reason for the tax is simply that the government saw a nice, fat
pot to skim from, and decided to take a piece. They new darned well if
they took it from the average working stiff who's widow needs the whole
estate just to buy groceries, they'd have a rebellion.

Remember too the reason the tax was removed. Real estate values
grow over time until a family farmer working his inherited section
of land would live hand to mouth and die a millionaire due to land
value. Family farms were going out of the family just to pay the
taxes.

This talk about "family farms" creates a warm fuzzy image in my mind,
of a little farming family with chickens in the barn, growing turnips,
about to lose the barn and chickens, but that is not what is typically
taxed.

Rex, check this out (somewhat dated).

http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

``These 440 taxable estates are those for which farm or business assets
made up at least half the total value of the estate. They represent
only 2 percent of all 18,800 taxable estates in 2004.''

``Worth noting is that family-owned farms and closely held businesses
already receive special treatment under current law. '' (I am not sure
if this is true any more)

Feel free to find other numbers, maybe my source is dated.

i

Why does anyone have the authority to tell someone else how much money
he "needs"? Aparently liberals think they do.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

This is also a good example why estate tax is a good idea. Just
because his son was made from his sperm, does not automatically make
him most qualified to run the business or "worthy" of being able to
command as much as his dad did.

You're more of a liberal than I'd realized, Ig.
Heartfelt condolences, sir.

How on Earth can being a dick qualify a person for an extra tax on
money their parents already paid tax on, and the heir will pay more
local taxes on when they spend it? And why should I, not a dick,
qualify for this tax?

WTF? Why should bad or stupid business practices on his part result
in taxes on your and my parts?

Wake up, Ig. You're on a bad (democrat) trip, duuuuuude.

--
To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage or of
principle.
--
Confucius

Why is that any of your business? Stop dictating how I run my life,
you meddlesome petty tyrant.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Ignoramus18915" wrote in
message news

So you think the government is the better heir?

Maybe it is not "better", but it prevents or at least reduces
perpetual dynasties that have nothing to do with merit.

i

Well, that's fairly conclusive that you're incorrigible liberal.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Ignoramus18915" wrote in
message ...

You live in a Rush Limbaugh fantasy land.

I highly recommend not listening to Rush Limbaugh at all, and trying
to re-establish your grip on reality. I do mean well when I say it, do
not take it as an insult.

i

On 2010-07-30, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Why is that any of your business? Stop dictating how I run my life,
you meddlesome petty tyrant.

Should we stop dictating how many wives you have, too?

i

Ignoramus18915 wrote:
On 2010-07-30, RBnDFW wrote:
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
Ignoramus18915 fired this volley in
:

Estate tax is an attempt to balance the pluses with minuses. Some
amout being taxed, still keeps people interested in becoming wealthy,
but curtails to some extent this resource misallocation.
Ig, the estate tax might have some small effect like that, but that's
hardly its purpose. I would love it if that were actually the case, but
that's a utopian's view.

The real reason for the tax is simply that the government saw a nice, fat
pot to skim from, and decided to take a piece. They new darned well if
they took it from the average working stiff who's widow needs the whole
estate just to buy groceries, they'd have a rebellion.
Remember too the reason the tax was removed. Real estate values
grow over time until a family farmer working his inherited section
of land would live hand to mouth and die a millionaire due to land
value. Family farms were going out of the family just to pay the
taxes.

This talk about "family farms" creates a warm fuzzy image in my mind,
of a little farming family with chickens in the barn, growing turnips,
about to lose the barn and chickens, but that is not what is typically
taxed.

Rex, check this out (somewhat dated).

http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

``These 440 taxable estates are those for which farm or business assets
made up at least half the total value of the estate. They represent
only 2 percent of all 18,800 taxable estates in 2004.''

``Worth noting is that family-owned farms and closely held businesses
already receive special treatment under current law. '' (I am not sure
if this is true any more)

Now that you mention it, I think there was a separate act for family farms.

Feel free to find other numbers, maybe my source is dated.

I won't contest the figures.
My argument is the validity of the tax in the first place.

On 7/30/2010 3:54 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Maybe it is not "better", but it prevents or at least reduces
perpetual dynasties that have nothing to do with merit.

And what's wrong with perpetual dynasties that have nothing to do with
merit other than that you aren't part of one?

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus5687 on Fri, 30 Jul 2010
02:30:52 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On 2010-07-30, Larry Jaques wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:43:22 -0400, Wes
wrote the following:


RBnDFW wrote:


"When he founded Harbor Freight Tools four decades ago, it?s unlikely
Allan Smidt expected it would end like it did this spring, when his own
son had an executive walk him out the door and lock him out of the
building."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/...ts-of-looting/

Assuming above story is factually correct, this is one of the few times I approve of post
term abortion

ROTFLSHIAPMP! Megadittoes.


This is also a good example why estate tax is a good idea. Just
because his son was made from his sperm, does not automatically make
him most qualified to run the business or "worthy" of being able to
command as much as his dad did.


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.
That Smidt's kid is an arshole does not mean that the rest of us
should pay for it. Pass an Asshole Tax, but spendthrifts are, in
their own way, "good for the economy" They provide entertainment for
the masses, and employment for many. Accountants, Lawyers, Bail
bondsmen, car salesmen, car repairmen, liquor & wine sails, doctors,
nurses, tabloid publishers, not to mention the sycophants, toadies and
hangers on that make up the entourage.

That the boy probably needs a good spanking goes without saying.
But lets leave the government out of this.


==
pyotr filipivich
"We are today in the most literal sense a lawless society, for our law
has ceased to be law and become instead its opposite -- mere force at the
disposal of whoever is at the controls." Charles A. Reich, _Peters Quotations_, (c) 1977.

Do you know why a death tax was introduced in the US?. IIRC it was
introduced in the UK to fund wars, and is in UK history at least
relatively recent. Currently stands at 40% on all assets above the
minimum threshold.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:21:35 -0500, Ignoramus18915
wrote the following:

On 2010-07-30, pyotr filipivich 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.

That Smidt's kid is an arshole does not mean that the rest of us
should pay for it.

Um, if I remember right, you do not have enough assets as to pay
estate tax, right? Why are you including yourself into "the rest of
us"?

If, indeed, your assets do not exceed estate tax deduction, they you
or your heirs would not be "paying".

Only one death out of 200, creates a situation where estate taxes
would be payable (per Warren Buffett, I am sure that he is right).

Pass an Asshole Tax, but spendthrifts are, in their own way, "good
for the economy" They provide entertainment for the masses, and
employment for many. Accountants, Lawyers, Bail bondsmen, car
salesmen, car repairmen, liquor & wine sails, doctors, nurses,
tabloid publishers, not to mention the sycophants, toadies and
hangers on that make up the entourage.

This is an empty argument. Any kind of economic activity has this
nature.

I could hire people to build 20 statues of me. But, while they are
employed to build statues, they would not be doing something more
useful. Or my money could be taxed, and spent by the government to
build 20 missiles, that would be fired at the current enemy of free
world. It is similar in nature also. Just to give you two examples.

Ig, the gov't wouldn't build missiles with it, it would be sucked into
a payout to a fraudulent contractor somewhere in the particular
CONgresscritter's district who would kick back 20% of it to the CON.
The project would be a highway to nowhere, a bridge to nowhere, a
military dock on a closed base in Hawaii, or other somesuch bull****
thing. Sure a few guys would be working, but it would involve fewer
of them than possible because it's a gov't job and unions are
involved, ensuring the highest possible wages to the worst possible
workers for the grimiest of builders...

The CONgresscritter's portion would then to go Columbia to support
some drug dealer there while supporting the CON's coke habit, to
brothels, to subverted aides and pages (of both sexes), and to the
Mafia, who helps enforce the CON's will in his district.

Just so you know, that's what's happened to the American Way.

Vote Democratic; Feed a dealer and Madam Today!

--
To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage or of principle.
-- Confucius

"Ignoramus18915" wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-30, pyotr filipivich 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.

On 2010-07-31, ATP wrote:

"Ignoramus18915" wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-30, pyotr filipivich 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.

i

"Ignoramus18915" wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-31, ATP wrote:

"Ignoramus18915" wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-30, pyotr filipivich 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.

i

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.

On 2010-07-31, ATP wrote:

"Ignoramus18915" wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-31, ATP wrote:

"Ignoramus18915" wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-30, pyotr filipivich 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.

i

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

"Ignoramus18915" wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-31, ATP wrote:

"Ignoramus18915" wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-31, ATP wrote:

"Ignoramus18915" wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-30, pyotr filipivich 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.

i

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.