Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The fact that a middle-class person has most of his/her assets in a house doesn't mean that it won't be liquidated anyway upon death. If it's being liquidated, whether to pay taxes or not, it becomes irrelevant that they might have to pay estate tax.

If I type "Fire sale" slowly, will you get it?

A sale driven by the need to pay taxes causes fire sale.

The estate tax is based on FMV -- meaning, what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller, with neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell.

So, if the value of a home for purposes of calculating the amount in the estate is determined according to FMV, but then the home is sold very quickly because the heirs need the cash to pay taxes, an even more substantial portion of the value of the home goes to pay taxes than what the tax code would appear to dictate.

If you think that the reason driving the sale is irrelevant, then talk to a lawyer who has had to handle the sale of a business in order to pay estate taxes. I had a big case that dealt with this very issue and speaking with these people was quite interesting, and educational (of course, I had to set aside my gut feelings about what 99% of the population does and actually listen, so it might not work for you).

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How many hours did Ty bill last year? Doesn't the firm have a minimum?

Ty doesn't work for me. Which is sad, because he works like a dog.

[Replaced_Texan]

Have I mentioned lately how much I fucking hate Republicans? (spree: Texas legislature)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm pretty sure Hank knows better than to make fun of that of which he is ignorant, merely because he doesn't understand it.

The only thing I didn't understand that was in any way material to the discussion is the historic background for recognizing wills. Sue me. Everything else was probably interesting to the tax lawyers, but not germane to what we were discussing.

This is starting to feel like my conference call this morning, which ended in the corporate lawyers on both sides yelling at the tax lawyers for both sides to just give us the fucking answer. We don't want to know what fucking code section it is pursuant to, or how these types of deals use to be done pre the 1986 amendments. Just tell us whether or not the structure works.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

no. More like---



[No, more like this. -- T.S.]

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If I type "Fire sale" slowly, will you get it?

A sale driven by the need to pay taxes causes fire sale.
.

I;ll get it and tell you you're all wet. First off, taxes aren't due until at least 9 mos. after death. If you have a normal house, you can sell it in far less time without fire sale pricing. Second, when heirs sell houses in most instances they just want to get rid of it and liquidate it. Call it a fire sale if you want, but it's not. It's a rapid liquidation because there's no desire to keep the house but do want their inheritance so they can buy the G.I. Joe with the Kung-Fu Grip. Third, if they have to sell to pay taxes, why not get a mortgage like most people? If the house is subject to mortgage, well that will net out of the estate. So for joe average, your point doesn't hold.

Now, if you're generalizing your experience with a business to joe average, go ahead. But I don't see how you can. So you dealt with a family business that didn't do estate planning. Well, it cost them not to talk to Wonk first. But you've moved from joe averge homeowner to ill-planned family business more quickly than you fairly can.

[c2ed]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Dunno how he defines his terms, but here areactual/projected spending on entitlements from 2004-10

_

According to the GAO, the current projection (as of March 4, 2005) for Part D net spending on prescription drugs is $593 billion from 2004-2013, and $258 billion from 2014-2015.

Scarily, I did not Google this. It's part of something I was working on today.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
BOLTON: ... you're ducking the key point that the commander in chief has to decide upon before putting American troops into a combat situation. We are now at war with Serbia. And the president has to be able to justify to himself and to the American people that Americans are about to die, or may well die, for a certain specific American interest.

O'REILLY: And I think the American military people over there understand that because of the status of America as the superpower policeman of the world, which we are whether we like it or not, there are some situations where we will have to put ourselves at risk for a long-term objective. And that long-term objective is basically not letting butchers like Milosevic run around and do what they want with impunity while we have the power to stop it.[/list]
via War and Piece

This guy is not a true NeoCon and a closet liberal. He should not be our representative at the UN.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
i'd say the same thing about the iraq war. Anything's boring after 100 posts.

Are the arcana of tax issues interesting? No--Club should just go learn how the estate tax actually functions before wonk has to explain it all. But personally, it seems to me there's a legitimate, and highly important policy/politics question of how we go about raising revenue to keep supporting all of the dems' social programs.

Maybe I didn't spend enough time there, but the old PB always struck me like one of those call-in shows, with al franken and rush limbaugh both responding.

I have to agree with Hank. I don't mind reading a lot of posts about the war in Iraq. But tax policy is boring.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Ah, one of my favorite Biblical verses. Anyone know the numbers on Pat Robertson's personal fortune? How about Randall Terry? Jimmy Joe Jack Dobson? Tom DeLay? Heck, I understand our current born-again President's worth a few millions from his stadium deal...

If you look at the whole world, a congressional salary puts you safely way in the rich catagory. I think anyone who posts to this board is in the rich catagory also. If you are making over thirty thousand a year you better be giving most of it a way, or you are going downstairs with me. Hey - it is only for an eternity.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have to agree with Hank. I don't mind reading a lot of posts about the war in Iraq. But tax policy is boring.

Boring:

• In 1992, when heirs to the Mars Inc. fortune joined a few other wealthy families to hire the law firm Patton Boggs LLP to lobby for estate tax repeal, the joke on K Street was that few Washington sightseers had paid so much for a fruitless tour of the Capitol.
  
  Today, the House is expected to vote to permanently repeal the estate tax, moving the Mars candy, Gallo wine and Campbell soup fortunes one step closer to a goal that once seemed quixotic at best: ending all taxation on inheritances.

WaPo

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Perhaps. But with all of the misrepresentation that goes on with names of groups/centers etc., I've become very suspicious.

The well funded ones are all right wing.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
See, I was spotting you teh $1m exemption. If the tax is an efficient one, and you make a cogent argument that it is (indeed, it is unavoidable and therefore does not create inefficiency, other than the timing of spending). So, I'd say no exemption, 50% all around. Drop the income tax accordingly.

Sounds good to me. When do I get my refund?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sounds good to me. When do I get my refund?

After sidd sells his parents' house.

BTW, Ty, I posted that yesterday. (and it's present tense now)

And, spanky, if there's one thing that will get you into fringey's pants it's talking tax. Maybe you don't want to go there, but you probably don't want the cock-block rep.