All Hank, all the time.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm confused. OK. I get how this is a gift to the rich. The rich get less taxes.

But how is everybody else getting screwed? Are you saying we have an entitlement to the rich's money?

Let's say your old man dies suddenly upon realizing that you have successfully spawned, leaving you the sole beneficiary of his estate of $500,000 of stock in tobacco and alcohol stock. Before, you would pay no taxes on the estate, and if you immediately cashed out the stock, you'd pay no capital gains tax either (if you held the stock, you'd pay cap gains on the difference between value when sold and value at the time of your father's death).

Under the new rules, you'd owe a 15% capital gains tax on the difference between what he paid and what it was worth when you sold it, even if you sold it immediately. Let's say the capital gain was the entire amount (because the stock was in a company he built from the ground up). You just got hit with a tax bill for $75k that you wouldn't have owed before.

Now, if Paris's old man dies, and leaves her $500 million, currently she gets hit with a tax bill of almost (if I remember correctly) $200 million, assuming her father took no action to shelter any of it using various means. Under the new plan, assuming all of it is again capital gain, she pays $75 million. A sizable tax break, in percentage (not to mention absolute) terms.

While an immediate sale is the simplest example, the effect is the same for both examples if the stock sale is later.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm saying that 97% ofr Americans are better off with an estate tax that has a unified credit amount fo say, $15-20M and a basis step-up at death.

Isn't it more like 99.97%?

My sympathies start running out the higher the credit gets. Anyone at that level of wealth who can't figure out how to pay the tax probably should have a subsantial part of their assets go to Sam.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
While I'm inlcined to agree with you, if she were to offer fellatio, unsolicited, to me, I would then disagree. In fact, I think I can generalize this to say that the offspring of a rich, hot starlet may deserve such a leg up so long as the starlet remains hot. and gives me unsolicited fellatio.

Preferably without the unsolicited herpes.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Isn't it more like 99.97%?

My sympathies start running out the higher the credit gets. Anyone at that level of wealth who can't figure out how to pay the tax probably should have a subsantial part of their assets go to Sam.

I was being very generous because I like you.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Let's say your old man dies suddenly upon realizing that you have successfully spawned, leaving you the sole beneficiary of his estate of $500,000 of stock in tobacco and alcohol stock. Before, you would pay no taxes on the estate, and if you immediately cashed out the stock, you'd pay no capital gains tax either (if you held the stock, you'd pay cap gains on the difference between value when sold and value at the time of your father's death).

Under the new rules, you'd owe a 15% capital gains tax on the difference between what he paid and what it was worth when you sold it, even if you sold it immediately. Let's say the capital gain was the entire amount (because the stock was in a company he built from the ground up). You just got hit with a tax bill for $75k that you wouldn't have owed before.

Now, if Paris's old man dies, and leaves her $500 million, currently she gets hit with a tax bill of almost (if I remember correctly) $200 million, assuming her father took no action to shelter any of it using various means. Under the new plan, assuming all of it is again capital gain, she pays $75 million. A sizable tax break, in percentage (not to mention absolute) terms.

While an immediate sale is the simplest example, the effect is the same for both examples if the stock sale is later.

Actually, Paris and Nick will pay jack shit. They'll hold on to the stock and live off the dividends, which thanks to GWB are now taxed at a lower rate than the tax paid by a single mom working at McDonald's.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
While I'm inlcined to agree with you, if she were to offer fellatio, unsolicited, to me, I would then disagree. In fact, I think I can generalize this to say that the offspring of a rich, hot starlet may deserve such a leg up so long as the starlet remains hot. and gives me unsolicited fellatio.

Even if she retains the film rights?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Even if she retains the film rights?

Poli-whiff. You too Ollie. Although she can keep the herpes, and leave the tapes.

For every paris hilton there's 12 rockefellers who give away substantial chunks of their vast wealth to good works. There's simply no principled way to may an estate tax debate on the worthiness of the beneficiary.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Poli-whiff. You too Ollie. Although she can keep the herpes, and leave the tapes.

For every paris hilton there's 12 rockefellers who give away substantial chunks of their vast wealth to good works. There's simply no principled way to may an estate tax debate on the worthiness of the beneficiary.

I just want all of you to know, I started on a response to this, and then decided I didn't care that much.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I just want all of you to know, I started on a response to this, and then decided I didn't care that much.

Ow. the first cut is the deepest.

[Wank McBumsky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Ow. the first cut is the deepest.

Concur. Although I should remind you that most people have Fringey on ignore. When you quote her drivelous posts, you force those people to be exposed to her lunacy. Let's sunset the allowance of that credit.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think we're all entitled to a world in which the Paris Hiltons of the world are not given three legs up simply by virtue of being born to rich parents.

That's socialism. I don't give a shit that she was born on home plate. Somebody's always going to be ahead.

And I still don't get why the estate tax repeal is going to cost me money. Is there something in the actual law itself that creates a tax burden on middle class people? I thought it was just a straight up repeal of the estate tax.

If they just repeal the estate tax, why does that necessarily make my taxes go up? My taxes would only go up if they repealed the estate tax AND decided to make up the loss of revenue by adding new taxes on the middle class, wouldn't it. If you leave my taxes the same, but give the rich a break on the estate tax, why would I care?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If they just repeal the estate tax, why does that necessarily make my taxes go up? My taxes would only go up if they repealed the estate tax AND decided to make up the loss of revenue by adding new taxes on the middle class, wouldn't it.

Do you actually think that won't happen, at least invisibly?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, Paris and Nick will pay jack shit. They'll hold on to the stock and live off the dividends, which thanks to GWB are now taxed at a lower rate than the tax paid by a single mom working at McDonald's.

Many retired business owners get paid in dividends as part of the buyout of the shares of their interest in the business. If you raised the rate on dividends sharply, you'd hurt a lot of people. You'd also make it more difficult for people to sell their businesses.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Do you actually think that won't happen, at least invisibly?

No, no I don't. But I was trying to hook someone into saying "But then how will we pay for all the programs!!!??? Think. Of. The. Children!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Thanks for the cock block, you level-headed, well reasoned prick.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Let's say your old man dies suddenly upon realizing that you have successfully spawned, leaving you the sole beneficiary of his estate of $500,000 of stock in tobacco and alcohol stock. Before, you would pay no taxes on the estate, and if you immediately cashed out the stock, you'd pay no capital gains tax either (if you held the stock, you'd pay cap gains on the difference between value when sold and value at the time of your father's death).

Under the new rules, you'd owe a 15% capital gains tax on the difference between what he paid and what it was worth when you sold it, even if you sold it immediately. Let's say the capital gain was the entire amount (because the stock was in a company he built from the ground up). You just got hit with a tax bill for $75k that you wouldn't have owed before.

Now, if Paris's old man dies, and leaves her $500 million, currently she gets hit with a tax bill of almost (if I remember correctly) $200 million, assuming her father took no action to shelter any of it using various means. Under the new plan, assuming all of it is again capital gain, she pays $75 million. A sizable tax break, in percentage (not to mention absolute) terms.

While an immediate sale is the simplest example, the effect is the same for both examples if the stock sale is later.

OK. You made the sale. I ain't for that sort of estate tax repeal. In fact, thats pretty fucking odious. If that's true, that's not estates tax repeal at all - thats estate tax revenue source transfer.

But if they just repealed it, I'd be for that (even though I do recognize it is kind of gross to see fortunes like the Walton family's bloat to fantastic levels).