|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
11-13-2012, 03:40 PM
|
#1
|
sick of bluefish
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Estate planning could have certainly taken care of much of the burden. That is what life insur. is for.
I don't think it is robbery - you do. We live in a democracy. If the majority don't think it is robbery, it will stay the way.
|
life insurance? So PaulS in that story should have had life insurance to offset the government stealing his $? WTF!
an oh, by the way -
Section 2042 of the Internal Revenue Code states that the value of life insurance proceeds insuring your life are included in your gross estate if the proceeds are payable: (1) to your estate, either directly or indirectly; or (2) to named beneficiaries, if you possessed any incidents of ownership (we'll discuss this more below) in the policy at the time of your death
You dont think its robbery the government seizes 55% of your assets when you die? Wow! What an incentive to work hard and provide for your family.
the majority paul dont give a F becuase they wont make that mych money and could care less if the f the rich. thats EXACLTY whats happening now with your O buddy - you know, the millionaires who make 250K a year! THOSE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO GET OUT OF THE TAX BURDEN THE REST OF THE COUNRTY IMPOSES ON THEM!!
if the majority are not being robbed, why should they care?
|
making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
|
|
|
11-13-2012, 03:49 PM
|
#2
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,207
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY
You dont think its robbery the government seizes 55% of your assets when you die?
|
Oh, Its Robbery....55% is rediculous
|
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
|
|
|
11-13-2012, 03:51 PM
|
#3
|
sick of bluefish
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman
Oh, Its Robbery....55% is rediculous
|
thats just fed, does not include state
but hey, its only the top 1%, who cares!
|
making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
|
|
|
11-13-2012, 04:01 PM
|
#4
|
Land OF Forgotten Toys
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Central MA
Posts: 2,309
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY
thats just fed, does not include state
but hey, its only the top 1%, who cares!
|
Unfortunately it is in fact everybody. The top 1% generally Have tax shelters and living trusts etc. set up to avoid these estate taxes. The actual estate owner technically does not own the estate. In general all of the physical holdings are part of a corporate trust. Therefore the only thing subject to estate taxes are liquid assets.
The top 1% pay the bare minimum of taxes to avoid government Inquiry. Obama and his cronies know this. Making promises of increasing taxes on the top 1% earners is simply pandering to people who Do not understand and will never have to understand. People are within the top 1% in earnings in the country for a reason. They know how to make money and they know how to keep it. Their annual income reported is just the tip of the iceberg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
I am the man in the Bassless Chaps
|
|
|
11-13-2012, 04:09 PM
|
#5
|
sick of bluefish
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackbass
Unfortunately it is in fact everybody. The top 1% generally Have tax shelters and living trusts etc. set up to avoid these estate taxes. The actual estate owner technically does not own the estate. In general all of the physical holdings are part of a corporate trust. Therefore the only thing subject to estate taxes are liquid assets.
The top 1% pay the bare minimum of taxes to avoid government Inquiry. Obama and his cronies know this. Making promises of increasing taxes on the top 1% earners is simply pandering to people who Do not understand and will never have to understand. People are within the top 1% in earnings in the country for a reason. They know how to make money and they know how to keep it. Their annual income reported is just the tip of the iceberg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
i think you're way off
The top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes! Thats a real number.
|
making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
|
|
|
11-13-2012, 05:04 PM
|
#6
|
Land OF Forgotten Toys
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Central MA
Posts: 2,309
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY
i think you're way off
The top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes! Thats a real number.
|
Agree however When compared to their actual wealth...... They make on average hundred and 25 times more money than we do the middle class. That is strictly taxable income. Other holdings which are not necessarily taxable. Add to their net worth. Is kind of what I was getting at.
Those holdings if the property of a trust. Are only taxed it turned into cash (Simply stated I realize) Or income is gained from them. In individual could own $100 million worth of property Through a trust. Then consider themselves an employee of the trust Getting an income from management fees etc. The property is rented at say $45 million a year. Your management employment fees somewhere in the neighborhood of $12.5 million a year. Taxes and insurance 25 million a year. Expenses etc. right down the line. The truck showed a profit of two $3 million a year. You take home for your management fees etc.$1 million a year. Your vehicle is taken care of by the trust. Your life insurance is guaranteed by the trust. There is 1 million ways to get paid without actually taking a check.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
I am the man in the Bassless Chaps
|
|
|
11-13-2012, 05:05 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY
i think you're way off
The top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes! Thats a real number.
|
That's true and makes one scratch their head when the Dems say they won't budge on resolving the so-called fiscal cliff unless the rich pay their "fair" share.
But I think there is something to what Jackbass is saying. Unless there is a way to remove the loopholes that are beneficial to the rich, raising the tax rate on their income will have no effect. 100% of the zero that is paid on loophole hidden income is still zero. The compromise the Repubs are proposing--keeping the rates the same but closing loopholes--makes more sense if the goal is raising government revenue. Lowering the upper rates with removal of loopholes would make even more sense. It would encourage the rich to pay the lower rates and would not have a negative effect on business.
|
|
|
|
11-13-2012, 05:23 PM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
I don't know if you guys have noticed but it's not the 1% any more..it's the 2% now...
Insight News
Demonstrators want to end Bush tax cuts for richest 2%, to protect working families
Monday, 12 November
A group of over forty Minnesotans representing the Americans for Tax Fairness coalition, and including representatives of SEIU, TakeAction Minnesota, Minnesotans for a Fair Economy, ISAIAH and CTUL, demonstrated in downtown Minneapolis this morning calling for an end to the Bush Tax Cuts and tax breaks for big corporations. The demonstration coincided with the first week of the congressional lame-duck session where a budget showdown looms.
Cliff Martin, a first-time voter and high school senior from Northfield, told the crowd that the time is now to make sure people are protected, not wealthy CEOs and corporations. "On Tuesday, I voted for a fair economy," he shouted. "It's time the richest who've benefitted the most over the past decade start paying their fair share." Martin supports a corporate tax reform plan that raises substantial revenue from those who have extracted billions from the American economy.
Those rallying marched on Nicollet Mall and through the skyway system, urging Congress to end tax cuts for the richest 2%, those that make more than $250,000 per year. To chants of "They never pay the taxes they owe. The money always goes to the CEO!" marchers headed into U.S. Bancorp's downtown headquarters, then over to Verizon and into Macy's department store.
|
|
|
|
11-13-2012, 04:15 PM
|
#9
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,207
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY
but hey, its only the top 1%, who cares!
|
Well, if you put it that way......
|
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
|
|
|
11-13-2012, 06:19 PM
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,306
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY
life insurance? So PaulS in that story should have had life insurance to offset the government stealing his $? WTF!Yes, that is good estate planning. As I said, I'm not an estate planner so I can't give you specifics but see below.
an oh, by the way -
Section 2042 of the Internal Revenue Code states that the value of life insurance proceeds insuring your life are included in your gross estate if the proceeds are payable: (1) to your estate, either directly or indirectly; or (2) to named beneficiaries, if you possessed any incidents of ownership (we'll discuss this more below) in the policy at the time of your death
You dont think its robbery the government seizes 55% of your assets when you die? Wow! What an incentive to work hard and provide for your family.
the majority paul dont give a F becuase they wont make that mych money and could care less if the f the rich. thats EXACLTY whats happening now with your O buddy - you know, the millionaires who make 250K a year! THOSE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO GET OUT OF THE TAX BURDEN THE REST OF THE COUNRTY IMPOSES ON THEM!!
if the majority are not being robbed, why should they care?
|
I think the exemption this year is $5,000,000 so I think there is $0 tax in your example above. Also, the death benefit is not taxable to the beneficiary. The ownership that they are talking about in your example above is the ownership of the policy. So if the estate owns the policy, the estate will have to pay tax on the cash value of the policy. If the beneficiary (in this case the 2 kids) owns the policy, they don't have to pay taxes on the cash value when Paul dies. And if I'm correct on the exemption, the ins. will only increase the benefits to the heirs.
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
Hybrid Mode
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51 PM.
|
| |