Quote :

" Do you claim your christmas gifts? And why dont you?"

If my parents get above the set amount for yearly cash gifts from my grandparents, they claim and pay taxes on the money. They get the money to hold on to and manage, and in exchange, they pay the taxes on it.

2/11/2007 9:02:41 PM

I think the biggest issue is the "estate" part of the estate tax. If your father leaves you a house or family business, but you immediately have to sell it because you cannot pay the multi-million dollar estate tax associated with it, thats a problem.

2/11/2007 9:04:11 PM

and thats the reason that they dont give over 10k. The amount isnt the issue, its the principle. I see im fighting a losing battle here, but Im enjoying the arguement.

2/11/2007 9:05:54 PM

For page 3...

Quote :

"Incidently, you should die broke. If you want to leave assets to your children, there are ways to do so that do not involve dying and letting the government do it for you. A little planning and foresight should make estate taxes a non-issue for most people."

2/11/2007 9:09:43 PM

Quote :

"The way I would answer your question is that the income tax has already been paid on that money."

my employer already paid tax on their money, but i have to pay taxes on it too

Quote :

"I understand the opinion that it is the next persons income, but I disagree. Do you claim your christmas gifts? And why dont you? "

if i had a $4M christmas gift you damn well better believe im going to claim it, i dont like jail

Quote :

"So if my brother needed some money and I gave him 20 bucks...why not tax that? Its income? I know you are saying thats not alot of money, but the principle is the same. "

by principle it is still income for him, however there are exceptions about what gifts need to be reported.

Quote :

"and thats the reason that they dont give over 10k"

what?


so basically your argument is that you "disagree" that it is income but have no real argument

2/11/2007 9:12:02 PM

RE: 10k

I think he's talking about the gift tax. It's actually $12k. If you gift someone more than $12k in a year, you pay gift taxes.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98968,00.html

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 9:16 PM. Reason : ?]

2/11/2007 9:16:06 PM

I didnt ask if you got 4M, i asked if you claimed your gifts? As I said, to me, its not about the amount of money, but the principle.

The person pays an income tax, once paid that money is yours.

2/11/2007 9:18:21 PM

Gifts aren't taxable unless they exceed $12k. Gifts exceeding $12k have income tax implications for the donor, not the recipient. You wouldn't actually pay taxes, but it comes out of your lifetime exemption, which could eventually have tax liability for your estate.

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 9:23 PM. Reason : ?]

2/11/2007 9:20:28 PM

$4M was just because i couldnt remember what the cutoff was for gifts so i picked a really high number

so if i had a $12k gift you damn well better believe it would be taxed

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 9:25 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2007 9:22:40 PM

You wouldn't owe taxes on a 12k gift.

2/11/2007 9:23:33 PM

Quote :

"The person pays an income tax, once paid that money is yours."

right

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 9:27 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2007 9:25:12 PM

No, nobody pays taxes on it.

2/11/2007 9:25:55 PM

what?
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=164872,00.html

2/11/2007 9:26:48 PM

The amount of gifts exceeding 12k per recipient per year is subtracted from your maximum lifetime exemption.

You only end up paying taxes if the value of your estate is greater than what's left of your lifetime exemption.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=164870,00.html

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 9:34 PM. Reason : ?]

2/11/2007 9:31:44 PM

guth, how is that money not yours? If you choose to do something with it, you will pay more tax. Bury it in the ground, you will pay no more taxes on it. Correct?

Actually, if you give money to a direct relative it doesnt appear they pay a tax, but the decessed estate will pay an inheritance tax. Either way, it still seems wrong to me. Why limit the amount of gift you can give, whether it be living or deceased? You can call it a different name, but its a double tax and seems wrong.

It seems that a gift is not considered "income", so why would gifts passed down after death be considered income?

2/11/2007 9:34:51 PM

The point of taxes is to raise income for the gov't. This right and wrong business is a weak attempt at trying to turn what should be a debate into an emotional fight.

2/11/2007 9:36:50 PM

i never said it wasnt yours, i said it was yours. do whatever the hell you want with it. and if you give it to someone else it is income to them.

gifts are income, jesus christ just read

[Edited on February 12, 2007 at 12:05 AM. Reason : .]

2/12/2007 12:05:12 AM

Quote :

"the cap is 4 million. "

Wikipedia would disagree...

Quote :

"For a person dying during 2006, 2007, or 2008, the "applicable exclusion amount" is $2,000,000, so if the sum of the taxable estate and the "adjusted taxable gifts" made during lifetime is $2,000,000 or less, there is no federal estate tax to pay. According to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the applicable exclusion will increase to $3,500,000 in 2009, the estate tax is repealed in 2010, but then the act "sunsets" in 2011 and the estate tax reappears with an applicable exclusion amount of only $1,000,000 (unless Congress acts before then)."

The current max rate is 46% (second highest in the world, even ahead of socialist France and Sweden).

But why are we fretting about the ultra-rich?
We should, instead, be fixing the worst death tax that affects the poor and middle class: Social Security.
SS imposes a 100% death tax on you when you die. All that money you "saved" during your working life disappears into the federal coffers at your death. Your family gets nothing. And when it was suggested that we set aside a little into personal accounts that could be transferred at death, the liberals had a conniption.

2/12/2007 12:20:56 AM

social security helps the poor and middle class. Would you walk around with your thumbs in your eyes if the government told you not to?

2/12/2007 12:27:08 AM

social security is paid for by the poor and middle-class, so the program helps no one without harming them equally. Well, worse than equally; if they had instead put the money into your basic savings account they would do much better.

2/12/2007 1:52:52 AM

sure, social security needs fixed (i.e. putting the burden on the upper class), but that doesn't mean we need to scrap the system. private savings accounts are only a band aid to the greater sociological concerns

2/12/2007 2:57:32 AM

^^last time i checked i was paying 7.5% and so was my company... how can you say THEY pay for it?

i don't even want to think about what (better) financial shape i'd be in if i was contributing another 7.5% of my paycheck to retirement every month!

2/12/2007 3:29:57 AM

^ I do not understand your post, I said YOU are paying for YOUR Social Security. Hell, worse than that; it is a pyramid scheme, YOU are paying for everyone elses Social Security in hopes that, later, someone else will pay for yours.

All in all, if the current SS tax is 7.5%, matched, that means 15% of your paycheck is going to the Social Security system. Imagine how rich you would be upon retirement if you were instead getting a 10% annual return on that savings.

2/12/2007 10:19:35 AM

people still argue that SS is a better option that other investments???





SS is the best idea ever to keep people sucking that govt teat... fucking DC slimebags

2/12/2007 10:25:16 AM

lets privatize social security because it is broke and will go broke in 20 years

2/12/2007 11:19:26 AM

privatization is worse than the status quo. Just abolish the damn thing; people do not need it anymore thanks to the existance of the FDIC: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Just eliminate the SS Tax, raise the income tax, and pay existing dependents from the general fund. As they die off the Social Security system ceases to exist, bravo.

[Edited on February 12, 2007 at 1:00 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/12/2007 12:57:43 PM

privatization = abolition

ignoring that, your idea is stupid. social services are anything but irrelevant or unneeded. especially with the increased polarization of society's wealth that we are seeing.

the only changes that need to be made to social security are lowering the max pay outs and upping the maximum paid in. if you upped the max paid in enough you could lower the rate and still ensure the system would pay for itself forever. Assuming it wont do so anyway.

2/12/2007 1:21:36 PM

Why? Social Security is not a transfer mechanism from rich to poor, tweaking it is not going to make it one. All it does is transfer money from the young to the old, which is invariably from the poor to the rich (since the old are, on average, much wealthier than the young).

Let me lay out a plan and you tell me if you like it. We abolish the SS Tax and raise income taxes. SS is replaced with a system that pays a low flat rate to all citizens above the age of 68, regardless of whether or not they are retired or not. The young, now that their wages are freed from the 15% SS Tax, take that 15% and either live their life with it or put it in the bank.

This way, it will transfer money from the rich to the old. While most old are rich, thus making it break even and unnecessary, a percentage of the old are middle-class or even poor.

2/12/2007 2:19:14 PM

I honestly believe we will never see social security fixed because of casino & cruise lobbyists.


Most old people are thrifty with their actual money. They just consider their social security checks "mad money" and thats why they sit there for weeks at a time at nickel slots just blowing it all away.

2/12/2007 2:22:03 PM

Quote :

"SS is the best idea ever to keep people sucking that govt teat... fucking DC slimebags"

Whether you are for or against social security, there is no excuse for this ignorant drivel. Social Security is nothing if not well intentioned. Your opinion of social security probably has more to do with your age than anything. If you are young, you see all the potential of the money you are forced to invest in social security. If you are old, you know all the mistakes you made/bad luck and are glad you can count on getting something out of social security.

Regardless, SS is a social program aimed at bettering society as a whole, not individuals. For every person who would do better without SS, there are probably 20 others who would fail to invest, invest poorly, or spend it too early.

The privatization schemes seems like letting the wolves in the hen house to me. I don't imagine it would be any prettier than privatizing defense. The management costs would likely erode the benefits.

My SS reform idea is to run it more like a pension and less like a pyramid scheme. Currently, money that isn't needed to be immediately paid out is invested in fixed income gov't securities (which basically means the gov't spends it). I'd like to see the trust fund invested in a variety of private investments like a pension fund.

2/12/2007 2:22:49 PM

Now that does sound like a disaster waiting to happen. Some Government Bureaucrat would eventually invest it all in S&Ls or thrifts.

If all we need is a safety net floor to catch idiots that invested all their money in what their Congressman suggested, then why not just do that? Why do we need Congress to create a pension fund 100 times larger than any other ever in existence? Can you imagine the economic power such an institution would wield? If it ever became insolvent it would bankrupt the whole country, not just the Government.

2/12/2007 2:39:19 PM

Now you're just playing devils advocate.

2/12/2007 2:48:23 PM

No, I seriously believe creating such a large government run institution would eventually lead to disaster. And, while I do not personally believe an old-age minimum income is necessary for most citizens and the role could be covered quite aptly by disability insurance, I believe it is a good compromise.

just so you understand: this stipend should not make one comfortable by itself, just alive and well. Otherwise, since all people want is comfortable in old age they would not save a single penny.

2/12/2007 3:04:18 PM

let's not forget people, social security is also there to help the disabled who are not able to work.

2/12/2007 3:49:18 PM

yeah, that or insurance

2/12/2007 6:20:07 PM

you are an idiot

2/12/2007 6:22:43 PM

I'll refrain from personal attacks

[Edited on February 12, 2007 at 6:33 PM. Reason : I'm not worried]

2/12/2007 6:26:18 PM

you can't get insurance for mental retardation.

2/12/2007 6:29:47 PM

so why not have something like they were talking about elsewhere in the thread?

a floor to keep the last few from falling to the bottom(even moreso then they are)

2/12/2007 6:33:30 PM

because it cannot exist without system wide taxes.

2/12/2007 6:38:37 PM

but if you tax the people who need to get the money it will all work out. right? right?

2/12/2007 7:15:19 PM

Sheesh. I thought this thread was about estate taxes. I still can't see why people are so hostile towards them. Yeah, I don't like double/multiple taxation either, but I'd much rather the government get money from dead people than our incomes and purchases. And I don't see why a society that believes in individuality, wealth being created through work and intelligence, and "all men are created equal" would be in favor of people gaining millions and billions of dollars for coming out of the right vagina.

2/13/2007 11:57:07 AM

because they arent really for that.

2/13/2007 11:59:22 AM

Quote :

"why shouldnt it go to help society?"

Quote :

"then either all the rest goes to government"

You must be talking about a different government. I believe individuals would be much better equip to distribute money to charity if they so choose. But the point is really that it is the person who dies to decide where they want their money to go. If they wanted it to go to public schools, they could leave it to a school. If they want it to go to cancer research, they can donate it to whatever charity. If their lifelong dream was to see the money poorly mismanaged in yet another botched road-improvement project they can leave their money to the NC DOT.

The government shouldn't double tax you, its just plain greedy.

That being said... I think I would start shedding money as I got close to my death. There are legal ways to get around paying taxes.

2/14/2007 4:00:33 PM

Quote :

"every poor person is on foodstamps. Let's look at the school lunches being offered these kids. cheaper food is food that is high in fructose corn syrup and trans fats. this is fact."

So you're blaming food for obesity? Sure, because it has nothing to do with the fact that Americans are more and more sedentary every year. When yesteryear's kids came home and played in the streets and local parks, today's kids come home and lock in front of the tv for the phony thrill of a video game.

Come on dude. Blaming food for obesity is on the same level for blaming alcohol for DUIs and blaming guns for murders. Focusing on inatimate objects is only a way of veiling the true root of the problem.

2/15/2007 8:51:17 AM

Also, the for years the estate tax cost more to administer than it brought in. It actually was a money losing program. So why did it stick around? Simple, because it was a simple expansion of federal powers.

It rises (or at least used to) to over 70% on estates over $10 million, BTW.

2/15/2007 8:53:29 AM

Just the idea that an IRS gov't agent is leaning over your coffin, picking through your pockets as they slide you into the ground is morally repugnant.

2/15/2007 10:29:36 AM

yeah, no shit

the fact that all types of govt agents are looking over our shoulders at all times would be repugnant to the people who started this country


sickening

2/15/2007 10:33:32 AM

Quote :

"So you're blaming food for obesity? Sure, because it has nothing to do with the fact that Americans are more and more sedentary every year. When yesteryear's kids came home and played in the streets and local parks, today's kids come home and lock in front of the tv for the phony thrill of a video game. Come on dude. Blaming food for obesity is on the same level for blaming alcohol for DUIs and blaming guns for murders. Focusing on inatimate objects is only a way of veiling the true root of the problem."

That analogy is not quite accurate. Neither alcohol nor guns are needed by every living person to continue living. You have to eat to live. And yes, today's generation is far more sedentary than yesterday's generation. In addition, the availability of affordable unprocessed food has declined markedly. Lower income families cannot always afford fresh healthy foods, not to mention the majority of Americans simply are ignorant of how bad such foods are for them. Due to the low cost, convenience and access to cheap processed foods, there is a causative relationship between the obesity epidemic and the food on store shelves.

And even with "health foods" they're not always what they seem. "Reduced Fat" items will often contain High Fructose Corn Syrup, low carb foods will often contain higher levels of saturated and trans fats. It's very challenging to eat an ideal diet in this country with the crap that gets put into our foods. We americans work so much (more hours per capita than any other country on the planet), that we don't have time to cook.

It's partially an issue of personal choice, and partially an issue of circumstance.

2/15/2007 10:43:41 AM

→

2/15/2007 1:12:47 PM