All Hank, all the time.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No, I get it. But why is that step up fiddling tied to the estate tax repeal? Why aren't they just repealing the tax, like they're advertising? Who inserted these provisions fucking with the step up?

The people who realized it had zero chance if they didn't.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No, I get it. But why is that step up fiddling tied to the estate tax repeal? Why aren't they just repealing the tax, like they're advertising? Who inserted these provisions fucking with the step up?

Why would you think there should be a step up in basis when ownership moves because of death? Unless you are saying that when the estate tax is repealed, all capital gains taxes should be repealed, in which case the whole basis issue is moot. Uh, except I think basis has to do with depreciation, but I don't think that's relevant here.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Why would you think there should be a step up in basis when ownership moves because of death? Unless you are saying that when the estate tax is repealed, all capital gains taxes should be repealed, in which case the whole basis issue is moot. Uh, except I think basis has to do with depreciation, but I don't think that's relevant here.

There's a decent argument for stepped up basis of administrative simplicity. Establishing the cost basis of your own holdings (i'm talking stocks, houses, etc., not companies) is difficult enough when they're your assets. Much more challenging when they're your parents, who probably kept shitty records.

That said, there's no good reason to allow assets transferred at death to escape taxation altogether.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I would guess that a substantial percentage of the larger gifts do, in fact, involve appreciated assets.

What you'd need are data on the amount of charitable giving per person (i.e., how much came from gifts of <$100, $100-500, 500-1000, >1000, etc.) I would guess that most gifts in the range over a few thousand dollars involve appreciated assets. It's only sensible. And I would guess that a substantial percentage of charitable giving is concentrated in gifts of large amounts, simply because a large gift is generally more than hundreds of small gifts.

Well, yes I agree that would make sense to do it that way, if one were a corporation. But I get solicitations all the time and I'm no corporation, and mostly I hand out cold hard ducats. It feels like you're correct, but I was curious about a source to confirm it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Well, yes I agree that would make sense to do it that way, if one were a corporation. But I get solicitations all the time and I'm no corporation, and mostly I hand out cold hard ducats. It feels like you're correct, but I was curious about a source to confirm it.

then why the fuck not pay your debt to the board?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No, I get it. But why is that step up fiddling tied to the estate tax repeal? Why aren't they just repealing the tax, like they're advertising? Who inserted these provisions fucking with the step up?

Because they'd never get it through Congress without eliminating the basis step-up. Nor should they.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Because they'd never get it through Congress without eliminating the basis step-up. Nor should they.

Why wouldn't that go thru congress? Indulge me here. I'm baffled as to why repeal wouldn't pass without eliminating the basis step up.

What would happen if we just eliminated the estate tax. No caveats, no extra provisions - just a repeal.

Who does the step up elimination placate? Is it a way to create tax revenue to make up for that lost as a result of the repeal?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Well, yes I agree that would make sense to do it that way, if one were a corporation. But I get solicitations all the time and I'm no corporation, and mostly I hand out cold hard ducats. It feels like you're correct, but I was curious about a source to confirm it.

You're not old enough. My university hits up the geezers for gifts of stock pretty hard, because the university won't have to pay the tax that an individual will. My grand uncle (rest in peace) gave a sizable amount of stock in a large car manufacturer that he had accumulated via a profit sharing plan to his alma mater instead of cash for that reason.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Why wouldn't that go thru congress? Indulge me here. I'm baffled as to why repeal wouldn't pass without eliminating the basis step up.

What would happen if we just eliminated the estate tax. No caveats, no extra provisions - just a repeal.

Who does the step up elimination placate? Is it a way to create tax revenue to make up for that lost as a result of the repeal?

It placates me for one. I can't believe you're even suggesting that there is even one iota of equity in imposing a full tax burden of wage-earners while giving those fortunate enough to inherit wealth a free ride.

I'm baffled that you can't grasp this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It placates me for one.

you're really pushing this "Max moratorium" shit.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/...age/index.html

Gay marriage ban-

• "I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one," said Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican. "I think this debate is very healthy, and it's winning a lot of hearts and minds. I think we're going to show real progress."

How can anyone other than the most extreme not be repulsed by this type statement? I understand that 60% or so of the voters are anti-gay on marriage, but the most important issue?

What is most absurd is that if there was a chance it could pass i bet the Rs wouldn't push it- that would prevent them from running a state ban in any battleground states in the future

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/...age/index.html

Gay marriage ban-

• "I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one," said Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican. "I think this debate is very healthy, and it's winning a lot of hearts and minds. I think we're going to show real progress."

How can anyone other than the most extreme not be repulsed by this type statement? I understand that 60% or so of the voters are anti-gay on marriage, but the most important issue?

What is most absurd is that if there was a chance it could pass i bet the Rs wouldn't push it- that would prevent them from running a state ban in any battleground states in the future

2.

The most important issue facing the country today is not gay marriage, but flag-burning. Thankfully, the Bush Administration and its Wahhabi Republican supporters are going to tackle that crucial issue next.

Runaway deficits, immigration, and the growing pile of bodies in Iraq come, respectively, in 15th, 27th, and 45th place, in order of importance. (The Iraq thing is just behind tax cuts for pest control companies, aka the Trent Lott Memorial Patriotic Pest Control Act.)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you're really pushing this "Max moratorium" shit.

What, like you lasted more than one day, anyway?

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

It seems that Spanky is to politics what str8 is to sports betting.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
It seems that Spanky is to politics what str8 is to sports betting.

Not true. He did win in CA-50.

Now all he has to do is find a nice home for the Bilbray family in the district, and he can move on.