Turns out it IS all the fault of the rich. Proof inside!

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: rjain
Actually, Gates started with a few million from his dad. Of course, that's nothing compared to the "few" billion he grew it into.

For real? I didn't know that.

OK, scratch Gates off my list! However, the remainder of the rant seems valid!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: rjain
Actually, Gates started with a few million from his dad. Of course, that's nothing compared to the "few" billion he grew it into.

For real? I didn't know that.

OK, scratch Gates off my list! However, the remainder of the rant seems valid!

william gates the second is a successfu lawyer in washington

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Like they say, money is the root of all evil...

hardly. money is merely an efficient form of exchange.

 

[naddicott]

I think one of the the reasons why Bill Gate's dad is so strongly in favor of keeping the estate tax, is that if his son had known he would inherit his father's entire fortune eventually, he would have had no incentive to make his own fortune using his father's starter money.

No estate tax == no Microsoft?!?

I think I may be changing my mind... maybe repealing the estate tax is a good idea.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Like they say, money is the root of all evil...

1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

Not money itself, but the love of money or the worship of mammon (Matt 6:24, Luke 16:13) the ancient god of acquiring riches for its own sake. Loving money, or worshipping mammon, is contrary to Christianity in 3 distinct ways: (1) it is a form of idolatry, (2) it demonstrates a lack of faith in God, and (3) it unbalances the peace in any society by breeding jealousy and the hoarding of limited resources may cause suffering in others.
It is not a sin to be rich, provided your wealth was created through honest and industrious means with due credit given to God for your fortune. It is a sin to be rich and not generous and charitable.
Money itself has been a very beneficial thing in human society, allowing for fair and equitable trading. Think of a society with no money... just how many chickens is a cow worth?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Like they say, money is the root of all evil...

The "love" of money.

 

[rjain]

Note that if you deposit your money in a bank, 90% of it gets recirculated back into the economy. So if you profess your love by saving your money, you actually help the economy.

Insurance is also a demonstration of lack of faith in God, FWIW. I guess I can see how religious people can think that collecting money is a form of religious worship to money. I guess coin and stamp collecting should be outlawed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: rjain
Note that if you deposit your money in a bank, 90% of it gets recirculated back into the economy. So if you profess your love by saving your money, you actually help the economy.

Insurance is also a demonstration of lack of faith in God, FWIW. I guess I can see how religious people can think that collecting money is a form of religious worship to money. I guess coin and stamp collecting should be outlawed.

Not necessarily. Insurance, or storing wealth against hardship or disaster, has precedent in the Bible as wisdom. See Genesis 41.
I don't see coin or stamp collecting as a sin in and of itself either, unless it became some type of obsession.

The love of money, or the worship of mammon, is something far more serious than those things. It is collecting wealth so that others can be made poor ("rich" and "poor" are relative terms - there are no poor without rich and vice versa). It is loving money more than your fellow men, in direct violation of the Golden Rule.
The first case in the Bible of what could be called mammon worship was when Cain murdered Abel so that he could have Abel's flocks. A modern example which shows mammon worship in its extreme would be the Mafia.
Bill Gates would be an interesting study on this subject. While somewhat ruthless in business (I don't think he's murdered anyone on the way to the top so I can't say the he is truly ruthless ), he has been industrious and he has provided great wealth to others in the form of jobs and products. Now he is engaged in philanthropy the like of which has not been seen since Carnegie. If he gives away his wealth before he dies (and I think he will), then he will have done well.
Sam Walton, on the other hand, is probably burning right now.

 

[Dragnov]

They're primarily self-interested just like the rest of us (not in a bad way necessarily.) They look to get richer and make use of their money. At the expense of others? Well everyone is doing something at the expense of another.

I think they exacerbate inherit flaws withing our government, but I don't blame them. They are not the problem, the flaws in the government system are. Democrats just like to create this class warfare so that they can get elected and collect from the rich, themselves. Nothing more funny the millionaire liberal hippies like Arianna Huffington. Not that Republicans are any better, but their greediness is expected.

 

[kaizersose]

this whole estate tax thing is such bs. aside from the fact that it is complete double taxation because all that money was taxed as income at some point, the principle of it is terrible.

why do people work hard and save? to make it easier for their children to succeed. when a parent will money to a child, why is it the government's responsibility to say, "well that was a nice thought, but we are going to go ahead and take this money and allocate it somwhere where WE think it would be spend better."

why is inheritance taxed? who cares if the kid hasn't worked a day in his/her life, it doesnt make it any mre fair. the money has been taxed once already and it isnt the governments business how to raise your kids (short of criminal activity).

 

[naddicott]

Oh my god!!! Taxed twice!?! Oh, the humanity!!!

If it makes you feel any better, call it a two-stage tax.

I apologize for my lack of empathy for the plight of the children of millionares and billionares, god forbid they may have to work for a living like everyone else. Whether the handout comes from daddy or from the government, it is still a handout. If someone makes their money with the sole purpose of leaving it to their children, then they're pretty stupid to make all that money without having understood the (old) tax code.

There's always the (Rockefeller and others) option of establishing a charitable foundation and stipulating that your descendants get to sit on the board. That way they still get to play with the money you earned, the government keeps its dirty hands off the money, and the money goes towards good causes to boot.

Without the incentive to keep the government from taking most of one's money (assuming one is a millionaire), donations to / establishment of charities is going to go way down as a result of the Bush administration's little kickback to the rich.

 

[Gyrene]

Unfortunately, to the tax system, you're considered rich if you make ~$50,000 or more. It's a good thing I only make 30K.

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: naddicott
Oh my god!!! Taxed twice!?! Oh, the humanity!!!

If it makes you feel any better, call it a two-stage tax.

I apologize for my lack of empathy for the plight of the children of millionares and billionares, god forbid they may have to work for a living like everyone else. Whether the handout comes from daddy or from the government, it is still a handout. If someone makes their money with the sole purpose of leaving it to their children, then they're pretty stupid to make all that money without having understood the (old) tax code.

There's always the (Rockefeller and others) option of establishing a charitable foundation and stipulating that your descendants get to sit on the board. That way they still get to play with the money you earned, the government keeps its dirty hands off the money, and the money goes towards good causes to boot.

Without the incentive to keep the government from taking most of one's money (assuming one is a millionaire), donations to / establishment of charities is going to go way down as a result of the Bush administration's little kickback to the rich.

Have to disagree with you a bit on this. First of all, the estate tax was never really that big of a deal. Most people whom it affected planned well in advance how to mitigate the costs, and it was only really an issue in the case of a premature/unexpected death, which was covered by insurance policies. And charitable foundations have never truly been a necessity, they are more or less a decision by the soft-hearted wealthy.

As for charitable donations declining, I don't necessarily think that will be the case. It depends a lot on how your wealth is distributed, but it has never been a real issue for most of those making more than a couple mil a year. Where it usually makes a difference is with those people closer to tax bracket divisions. Charitable donations are really only guilt spending for those well above the break, or in some cases media spin. That the government used to subsidize 40% of it versus 35% now doesn't really make much of a difference.

 

[rjain]

If it's only going to apply a significant tax to those who died unexpectedly, all we're accomplishing with an estate tax is to make the lives of widows and orphans more difficult. Yeah. Stick it to them. Just because their father was rich and died in a crash means that they should have that money taken away from them.

Oh, and making $50k/year in some parts of the world IS considered rich.

Also, the income tax is incremental. When you jump from one bracket to another, only the amount above the bracket's level is taxed at the higher rate, so you don't lose any money by having more income.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: rjain
If it's only going to apply a significant tax to those who died unexpectedly, all we're accomplishing with an estate tax is to make the lives of widows and orphans more difficult. Yeah. Stick it to them. Just because their father was rich and died in a crash means that they should have that money taken away from them.

Oh, and making $50k/year in some parts of the world IS considered rich.

Also, the income tax is incremental. When you jump from one bracket to another, only the amount above the bracket's level is taxed at the higher rate, so you don't lose any money by having more income.

Then I got owned by my previous employer. He was siphoning some money away from me.

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: rjain
If it's only going to apply a significant tax to those who died unexpectedly, all we're accomplishing with an estate tax is to make the lives of widows and orphans more difficult. Yeah. Stick it to them. Just because their father was rich and died in a crash means that they should have that money taken away from them.

Oh, and making $50k/year in some parts of the world IS considered rich.

Also, the income tax is incremental. When you jump from one bracket to another, only the amount above the bracket's level is taxed at the higher rate, so you don't lose any money by having more income.

Really? I could swear that my entire income is taxed at the same rate. I'm gonna have to give my CPA a call in the morning to get that straightened out.

As for the other part, you took it the wrong way. Proper estate planning involves a lot of smaller steps in order to get around a big chunk of the taxes, and can take a while to fully implement legally. Premature death can derail that process, but most wealthy people have adequate insurance plans to compensate for it, and in the end not cause too much harm to the estate. They don't really get it stuck to them so long as the deceased had competent advice.

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: naddicott
What a BS example.

All the money has never gone to the government. Only the richest 2% of American families were ever subject to the estate tax. The first million in assets has always been completely exempt from estate taxes. My dad does work hard and save up so I can have a better future, and when he passes, none of the money would have been subject to the original estate tax, because in his lifetime he isn't going to be able to amass over a million in assets. The idea that this tax ever affected the "average Joe" or that it took all of someone's assets and gave them to the government is a wholy false assertion that the lobbyists for the rich tried to sell to the ignorant American public which the public in general took hook line and sinker. (Just because 70% of Americans think everyone is subject to the estate tax, doesn't mean that was ever true)

I would favor adjusting that exemption to keep up with inflation.

The sad thing is, a large number of families who would have been subject to the estate tax are petitioning to have it restored, headed up by Bill Gates Sr.:
A call to preserve the estate tax. (with 1,560 signers who would have owed estate taxes or would pay estate taxes in the future under the old law)

[edit: btw... the exemption is $2 million for a couple. edit: link fixed]

The exemption has not always been $1 Million per person. It was only $600,000 until the law was changed a couple of years ago and it was being indexed to $1 Million. The 2001 law changed it to $1,000,000 and phases it out in 2010. However, this law expires in 2011 and the tax will return to $1,000,000 under the old law unless another law is passed. The exemption is $2,000,000 for a couple only if they have an appropriate will and trust agreement. If the first person dies and leaves his assets to his spouse, the sum will then be subject to the $1,000,000 limitation.

A significant number of wealthy people oppose elimination because they are generous. I don't know why they make a big deal of it. They can give their money away anytime they want. This law actually has a huge impact on a small group of people - small business owners. They have to jump through legal hoops to protect their businesses. Today, $1,000,000 gets you 300 to 400 acres of good farmland - not enough to sustain a full time farmer in most parts of the US.

There are two ligitimate sides of this argument. Some of these assets have gained incredible value over the years and never been taxed. Therefore, it seems unfair that these can be passed on without any tax impact. On the other hand, some of these assets have been fully taxed, raising the question of why death is a taxable event. The other problem is that the tax rates levied are way beyond the normal taxation of capital gains. As structured, the Estate Tax is not tax, it's confiscation.

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: rjain
If it's only going to apply a significant tax to those who died unexpectedly, all we're accomplishing with an estate tax is to make the lives of widows and orphans more difficult. Yeah. Stick it to them. Just because their father was rich and died in a crash means that they should have that money taken away from them.

Oh, and making $50k/year in some parts of the world IS considered rich.

Also, the income tax is incremental. When you jump from one bracket to another, only the amount above the bracket's level is taxed at the higher rate, so you don't lose any money by having more income.

Really? I could swear that my entire income is taxed at the same rate. I'm gonna have to give my CPA a call in the morning to get that straightened out.

Your income is all taxed at the same rate only if you have a very low income.

Currently, if you are single, your first $6000 is taxed at 10%
Additional income up to $26,250 is at 15%
Additional income up to $63,350 is at 27%
Additional income up to $132,600 is at 30%
Additional income up to $288,350 is at 35%
Additional income over this is at 38.6%

I think this is still correct this year but it may be indexed a little.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: KenGr
The exemption has not always been $1 Million per person. It was only $600,000 until the law was changed a couple of years ago and it was being indexed to $1 Million. The 2001 law changed it to $1,000,000 and phases it out in 2010. However, this law expires in 2011 and the tax will return to $1,000,000 under the old law unless another law is passed. The exemption is $2,000,000 for a couple only if they have an appropriate will and trust agreement. If the first person dies and leaves his assets to his spouse, the sum will then be subject to the $1,000,000 limitation.

A significant number of wealthy people oppose elimination because they are generous. I don't know why they make a big deal of it. They can give their money away anytime they want. This law actually has a huge impact on a small group of people - small business owners. They have to jump through legal hoops to protect their businesses. Today, $1,000,000 gets you 300 to 400 acres of good farmland - not enough to sustain a full time farmer in most parts of the US.

There are two ligitimate sides of this argument. Some of these assets have gained incredible value over the years and never been taxed. Therefore, it seems unfair that these can be passed on without any tax impact. On the other hand, some of these assets have been fully taxed, raising the question of why death is a taxable event. The other problem is that the tax rates levied are way beyond the normal taxation of capital gains. As structured, the Estate Tax is not tax, it's confiscation.

Good post KenGr. I agree with the statement on the petition that the law still needs work (esp. for things like family farms), but the best answer lies in amending the law, not repealing it, IMO.

The minimum was already $1mil in '98 when I worked in an estate planning dept. at a major bank. I didn't get the impression that the change was recent, but with a little research your facts hold up (the link is an interesting read). The exemption was raised to $600,000 in 1986 from $225,000 in 1981 and $120,667 in 1976.

I like how Warren Buffett (who gives gifts of no more than $10k per year to his descendants) puts it:

The DuPonts might believe themselves perceptive in observing the debilitating effects of food stamps for the poor, but were themselves living off a boundless supply of privately funded food stamps. . . . The idea that you get a lifetime of food stamps based on coming out of the right womb strikes at my idea of fairness.

Beyond a certain level (perhaps $1 mil is too little these days), I have no problem with confiscating descendants' "entitlements", although it would probably bother people less if they felt the government would do something responsible with the money.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Like they say, money is the root of all evil...

1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

Not money itself, but the love of money or the worship of mammon (Matt 6:24, Luke 16:13) the ancient god of acquiring riches for its own sake. Loving money, or worshipping mammon, is contrary to Christianity in 3 distinct ways: (1) it is a form of idolatry, (2) it demonstrates a lack of faith in God, and (3) it unbalances the peace in any society by breeding jealousy and the hoarding of limited resources may cause suffering in others.
It is not a sin to be rich, provided your wealth was created through honest and industrious means with due credit given to God for your fortune. It is a sin to be rich and not generous and charitable.
Money itself has been a very beneficial thing in human society, allowing for fair and equitable trading. Think of a society with no money... just how many chickens is a cow worth?

True, the love of money is the root of all evil, but having money makes a man want to posess more of it. Therefore, I would say that due to the greed-inducing nature of money, money itself is the root of all evil. You show me a person who doesn't want more money (especially when they do have some) and I'll show you a person who truly does not worship mammon. Look at rich people, for example. If they were truly satisfied with the obscene amounts of money they have (I'm not begrudging anyone anything, but do you really need millions and millions of dollars to live a happy life?) they wouldn't be obsessed with their finances and the goal of becoming richer.

-just my 2 cents

 

[rjain]

Flyermax: I hope you're poor, starving, and diseased, for your soul's sake.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: rjain
Flyermax: I hope you're poor, starving, and diseased, for your soul's sake.

I'm on my way there

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Because they exploit the working class.

Okay, Karl.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Because they exploit the working class.

Okay, Karl.

I think he would have said proletariat, but needed to dumb it down

 

[Tom]

________________________________________________________________
"Your income is all taxed at the same rate only if you have a very low income.

Currently, if you are single, your first $6000 is taxed at 10%
Additional income up to $26,250 is at 15%
Additional income up to $63,350 is at 27%
Additional income up to $132,600 is at 30%
Additional income up to $288,350 is at 35%
Additional income over this is at 38.6%"
________________________________________________________________

Something to keep in mind though is that SS tax only applies to first $100000 of earned income, I think. So the total tax rate for people with income above $100000 actually goes down, particularly if you include the other major regressive taxes, property and sales taxes, which apply equally to all regardless of income.

Net affect is that after Bush's tax cuts, the extremely rich pay smaller % of their income in taxes than middle class.