posted on February 15, 2001 06:56:11 PM new
dejavu,
I'm not sure who you are addressing, but if you are addressing me with your rather rude questions, I can tell you my income and taxes are none of your business, but I will say that I am comfortable and my taxes this year will be in the upper 5 figures.
And my son has been paying taxes on his income since elementary school. I fail to see the relevance, however, of your comments except you appear to be upset by your taxes.
posted on February 15, 2001 08:06:02 PM new
Antiquary - I enjoyed the URL you shared. While I very much differ with most views expressed there, it was a lot of interesting reading.
First, I believe, the estate tax was implemented to fund our nations wars, sometime in the early 1900's.
I believe in one of the articles I read that this tax affects 1-2% of the taxpayers...but that % is rising....to now include more and more middle income people....especially those with small business...farms...ranches..etc.
Then this group of people (the ones feeling the taxes shouldn't be lessened) seemed to be involved with a group called "United For A Fair Economy". An activist group who sound like their founders are mostly Quakers, with a few other small groups of religious.
The reason I personally feel the estate tax is very unfair to the middle income people, is that the limit of the estate is only untaxed if the estate is valued under approx. $600,000.00. While I know that to many posters here, that is a huge sum, the facts are that more and more Americans are beginning to exceed that amount upon death.
For example: We lived in San Jose, where the value of a lot of homes there exceed the $600,000. by themself. If we should have died while living there our sons would have had to pay an estate tax. Because the value of our home, 401Ks, retirement, savings, etc. would have been very much over that limit. We have already paid taxes on the income in order to have those 'riches', so why should our sons be taxed again on that money? We don't believe they should. The efforts and hard work of my husband should be passed down to our sons, without additional taxation. IMO, of course.
posted on February 15, 2001 08:17:04 PM new
Also I was surprised to see that this group (United For A Fair Economy) seems to be 'selling' the idea of a fair and equal balance of wealth, not only in our country, but globally. Kind of a 'spread the wealth' around the world. Make things equal. Our country is not a socialist run society. Those who have earned may have a sense of moral obligation, if they so deem, to contribute to whatever charitable organization that they wish to. But I do not feel this charity should be tax driven.
The articles I read, seemed to me, to be under the opinion that if the estate tax is either lowered or dropped, then those hurt the most would be the charitable organizations. My personal views are that I'd like to keep my own money, or leave it to our sons, and have the right to 'share' my money with whomever I/they wish to. I don't like the idea of a tax that makes (through taxation) us be charitable to the poor.
posted on February 15, 2001 08:17:56 PM new
It's not as though when you hit $600,001 , everything gets taxed; the first 600K remain exempt. Is this really so unfair?
-gaffan-
posted on February 15, 2001 08:19:09 PM new
Linda,
I completely agree with you that the exemption needs to be increased. My wife and I have been hit with inheritance taxes from various relatives' estates several times and especially heavily last year. As with the protestors in the article, however, I don't believe that they can be completely eliminated.
posted on February 15, 2001 08:36:48 PM new
Actually, I think that under current tax law the exemptions are gradually scheduled to move up to about a million, which seems fair to me. I haven't checked lately though so I could be over-estimating the end amount.
posted on February 15, 2001 08:52:12 PM new
Hoping I don't get cut off by the storm we're experiencing right now.
Antiquary - I believe the numbers I just read said that by the year 2006 the exempt part will be $1.3 million.
What I'm trying to say, is that right now, today, not in 5 more years, more middle class people are already exceeding that limit.
For example. Our ex-next-door neighbors owned a home valued the same as ours. They also happen to have a cafe in downtown San Jose. Should they die, their daugther and son will be exposed to very high estate taxes, and could be forced to sell the family business. Now why should that be? The husband and wife refinanced their home, took all their savings, borrowed up the yang-yang to establish that business. Now, because they might die their children could be forced to sell it to pay the estate taxes. Thus affecting their ability to earn an income? Why? This is an example of what has become unfair, in my mind.
People should be able to pass down the benefits of their efforts and achievements, not give 50% of them to the government.
But I do agree, that maybe a compromise could be reached by making the exemption much higher to reflect what's really going on in our economy today.
posted on February 15, 2001 09:17:34 PM new
On family owned businesses, the site below provides information that indicates that such businesses can legally reduce valuation and can also pay liabilities over a period of 14 years, no interest or penalities.
posted on February 15, 2001 09:24:08 PM new
Good evening krs - That article addresses the same information Antiquary's did. Lists the same names too. And does also refer to the subject of charities that I mentioned.
From your article:
"The estate tax," it says, "exerts a powerful and positive effect on charitable giving. Repeal would have a devastating impact on public charities."
I guess I'm saying any donation to any charity should be voluntary. People who are of a giving nature will still give.
Those are the VERY VERY rich (the billionaiers), who's lives wouldn't be impacted by paying an estate tax. Many in Silicon Valley (on paper) are millionaiers. The lives of their children would be affected by these taxes.
So krs in the example that I gave above of our neighbors, are you saying you feel that it's okay their children might have to sell the business, that would produce their own income?
Are you saying that if this tax is eliminated that these billionairs can't still give of their wealth to any organization they choose? Please help me understand why you oppose the estate tax being eliminated personally.
When they die, their families won't have to sell anything in order to keep a family business, farm, ranch etc.
posted on February 15, 2001 09:29:38 PM new
Linda,
In the second link that I gave, no one would have to sell a business or farm to pay the inheritance taxes since for family-owned businesses payments may be extended over 14 years. You may still feel that the taxation is unfair but it doesn't necessitate the selling of small businesses.
posted on February 15, 2001 09:40:19 PM new
linda_k,
Why are you addressing me? I had not said a word, much less voiced an opinion.
However, you probably don't know that many people make charitable donations to government programs in order to avoid the necessity of their heirs paying tax on inheretences. Should that need be dissipated the inclination toward such donations would lessen, yet the programs will go on, picking up the slack from the tax paid by all, including your dear dear children.
posted on February 15, 2001 09:44:41 PM new
Antiquary - Yes, I had seen a similiar article published when this issue came up during the Clinton years. But please note it says somewhat.
The new tax law alleviates the problem somewhat by reducing the volume and velocity of death taxes.
Then goes on to say what I've tried to say [i]This won't affect you, right? Think again.
Anyone who owns a home, a pension plan, a few investments and a life insurance policy is probably above the exclusion. Add a business to these, and you usually top out well over the exclusion[/i]
And yes, if taxes are owed they can be paid out over a set period of time. But why have the burden in the first place?
In the example I gave, why should the children have to pay any taxes, when the business is a two generation operation. Because one dies more taxes are owed now that weren't owed, they again become more indebted.
Taxes will still be paid on any income produced from the business. If this estate tax owed affects their profit margin, that alone might necessitate their selling the business and therefore being out of a job when along with their parents they were doing okay before a death ocurred. (How am I doing at run on sentences? Sorry)
posted on February 16, 2001 12:15:48 AM new
Linda_K:
Your argument is truth-based, stupendously explained, and brilliantly on target.
Any rebuttal by others is simply that sprig of parsley lying beside your steak. Good for looks but not very tasty.
You have just constructed a Rolls Royce. If I were you, I would (now) sit back, enjoy the ride, and just smile as the Yugos pull along side and "beep-beep" their horn.
PS: The implementation of the "estate tax" was for assisting in the financing of WW1. Another Socialist-Bolshevik (Liberal Democrat) practice by our "democracy."
posted on February 16, 2001 06:48:10 AM new
By the way, farms and family businesses already enjoy the $1 million exemption.
And guess who will be paying the billions of lost revenue.
It will be the middle income tax payer along with
Possible cuts in Social Security, Medicare and environmental
protection.
If the federal government can afford to return to over 1 trillion dollars to the taxpayers, that is proof in the pudding that our government is engaging in excessive taxation. Do you believe the government would be returning money to the taxpayer and leaving their (government) coffer dry?
Why should anyone be put in a position of losing what has been given to him or her as a gift or as a ancestral transfer just to provide for others? Voluntarily providing for the needy might be benevolent, but who made it a rule?
Like it or not, Americans are suppose to have the freedom to pass by the tin cup without donating and not be penalized. Forced redistribution of wealth is collectivist (socialistic), not democratic.
I am sure that the general taxation by all taxing bodies is ample to assist the needy.
If a person chooses to hand down money and property to their children regardless the children did not ".....work for it," is none of my business and does not warrant me sticking my nose in other's personal affairs.
posted on February 16, 2001 07:52:46 AM new
Sgtmike,
My privilege to disagree with you and Linda_K
does not make me a Socialist. I could
add what it does say about me and not about
you but that would probably bring on the
MOD SQUAD
I'll be on the porch for awhile. Carry on!
Helen
EDITED to add that I would rather be called
a socialist than a Republican.
[ edited by HJW on Feb 16, 2001 07:54 AM ]
[ edited by HJW on Feb 16, 2001 07:59 AM ]
posted on February 16, 2001 08:18:08 AM new
If they have an "extra trillion dollars" laying around, why on earth don't they use it on our National Debt? It is just about the largest of any nation.
posted on February 16, 2001 08:19:50 AM new
There is no surplus that results from taxation. There is a surplus that results from the extraordinary competence of the Clinton administration in fostering an economic growth never before seen. That growth, and the resultant increases in income still taxed under the burdonsome policies of the previous republican ineptitude has created the surplus.
Personally, though I may pay more in tax, I sure do have a lot more money to pay tax on. They only take part of it and there's so much , thanks to Bill Clinton, that I really couldn't care less.
posted on February 16, 2001 08:40:31 AM new
Here is how it works.
The platform from which I conduct my life is; I and mine come first.
If I choose to give you a dollar that I earned, and belongs to me, you are obligated to (feel) privileged. Regardless of your circumstances, you have no right to believe that I am (required) give you what is mine.
If I voluntarily do, or if I am required to, you should be obligated to pay an "estate tax" on the dollar. It is a gift and you did not work for it.
posted on February 16, 2001 09:02:48 AM new
It's quite true, and Alan Greenspan said it. Might help to actually read something besides rush now and then.
Money begets money, for you biblical folks, and that is true no matter who gots the money. Where do you think they park your trillion dollar surplus, in a white house mattress upstairs? No, it's in the market in one form or another, and as the market thrives, so does the surplus. That's why Greenspan WARNS that while a tax cut is affordable as things are going now, it could turn into a boondoggle of increased national debt and higher interest rates in a recession. If people aren't spending, if business isn't profiting, then there won't be as much TO tax, which will lower the excess or surplus because regardless the economy, the government will still have costs to bear.
Funny questions from someone who purports to depend on taxpayers to pay his salary.
I could