Is this guy the biggest ass in congress?

[Common Sense]

seeing as how a house has value, it can be perceived as income. same with a stock portfolio and a business. its basically free money. just like you get taxed at 55% if you win the lottery. maybe you dont want to see that money taxes either.

It is not income. It is an asset of the estate. Income is the gain realized by a business or property not the business or property itself.

The last time I checked a business wasn't money it is something that may or may not produce income. Your lottery example is income because it is the gain derived from gambling. You can also deduct the money spent on all your losing lottery tickets from your winnings.

if your net worth increase then your income went up. a business whose value is say $10M means that you are now worth $10M. you didnt earn this money through a regular job, hence it it new money an it is taxable.

your argument is extremely flawed. by your reasons investment income wouldnt be taxes either. because you also stated that a stock portfolio has no value. (as a dumb assumption). anything of value given to you as part of an estate above the $5M exemption is taxable as new income.

 

[beowolfe]

I disagree Cuyo. That money was earned by a member of the family. Once that wealth has entered the family unit, it is up to them on how it is distributed.

Hands up here - anybody - who when slaving away, making money, paying off the mortgage, says to themselves while lying on their death bed, "Well, I'm glad I put in all those hours so 35% of my hard-earned cash goes to the govt".

Anybody have those thoughts?

I sure as shit don't....I begrudingly give the govt up to 30 percent of my current salary and I'm not too happy how they spend the majority of it as it is, let alone what they do with any they take from me after I die.

Tell me, if the govt is so willing to take my hard earned cash after I die, are they willing to reimburse me, if say, my stocks start losing money? They want me to take the risk while I'm alive, and if I lose money, tough shit. But when I die, they have their hand out saying "Thanks very much."...

..they can get lost.

And going back to the OP, yes Weiner looks like a turd hound. Not so much his demeanour, but I hate the way Pollies are asked a simple question, yet refuse to answer it. He does look a tad worse with his sophmorish pouting....

you still fail to recognize that when the $ is transferred to the heir, it is still new income to the heir. you try to make the argument that it is family $. but then you fail to see that families can you use inheritance as a tax shelter and hide it from paying any taxes. (which you probably think is a good thing as well.) thus since it is new income, it is taxable. now i have already stated several times that there are many ways to legally transfer businesses and money and be able to avoid the estate tax. this is how the wealthy transfer estates to the children generation after generation. if you read or listen to warren buffet you would also understand more of why the estate tax is a necessity. Buffett backs estate tax, decries wealth gap | Reuters. if we repeal the estate tax, that lost tax revenue must be recovered in some other manner. which will ultimately lead to higher taxes on the middle class. something which you obviously support if you want to once again shift the tax burden off the 0.3% of people who are hit with the estate tax.

you also complain about paying taxes, but you probably enjoy many of the benefits of taxation. such as roads, schools and parks. should we just become a pay as you go society? lets pay for each individual use of everything. then we can make all schools private and all roads toll roads. what about national parks? lets just close them all and let them be run by private corporation. then they can become like disneyland and charge a hundred bucks a person, let corporations advertise on their lands, and sell the rights to the wildlife and natural resources until they are depleted. if youre unhappy with the amount of taxes you pay why dont you go abroad and see what the tax rate and quality of life is like.

England has a top tax rate of 40%
France has a top tax rate of 52%
Germany has a top tax rate of 45%
Australis has a top tax rate of 45%
Spain is also 45%

The US has a top income tax rate of 35% currently, and we dont even provide universal health care. we are not overtaxed as a nation.

A house or property is not income, a stock portfolio is not income, a business is not income.

they are assets that may produce income but they themselves are not income.

But any of those things passed on by a living relative is subject to gift taxes. It should be the same if the person passing them on dies. Why should someone who receives their inheritance before the person dies have to pay taxes and the one who gets it after the person dies doesn't. That's what's unfair to me.

 

[Big Fitz]

you still fail to recognize that when the $ is transferred to the heir, it is still new income to the heir.

No, we disagree that it is taxable income to the heir. We recognize the heir is gaining the property of their deceased relative. This often includes the debts too. Those aren't credited against them are they? No. Debts often go along with the estates.

Nobody's answering my question on why they think death automatically gives the government right to a family's property? I suspect it's because it shines a spotlight on their unethical, evil desires.

 

[Big Fitz]

gift taxes

Another taxation abomination.

 

[Common Sense]

you still fail to recognize that when the $ is transferred to the heir, it is still new income to the heir.

No, we disagree that it is taxable income to the heir. We recognize the heir is gaining the property of their deceased relative. This often includes the debts too. Those aren't credited against them are they? No. Debts often go along with the estates.

Nobody's answering my question on why they think death automatically gives the government right to a family's property? I suspect it's because it shines a spotlight on their unethical, evil desires.

it doesnt give them an automatic right. i have stated this many times already on this thread. with proper planning, most large estates get passed down without hardly an tax liabilities. it just takes proper planning.

and the person taking over the estate is not liable for any debt, the estate is liable for those debts. thus they have to be paid off before anyone can receive any proceeds from that estate.

on the terms of taxable income, any new income is taxable. whether it be an asset, or actual cash. otherwise, why couldnt i just give away my entire estate in small pieces each year and avoid paying any of my own taxes? if i show that i lost money every year and took a tax deduction against that loss, why would i ever pay any real taxes?

 

[Skull Pilot]

seeing as how a house has value, it can be perceived as income. same with a stock portfolio and a business. its basically free money. just like you get taxed at 55% if you win the lottery. maybe you dont want to see that money taxes either.

It is not income. It is an asset of the estate. Income is the gain realized by a business or property not the business or property itself.

The last time I checked a business wasn't money it is something that may or may not produce income. Your lottery example is income because it is the gain derived from gambling. You can also deduct the money spent on all your losing lottery tickets from your winnings.

if your net worth increase then your income went up. a business whose value is say $10M means that you are now worth $10M. you didnt earn this money through a regular job, hence it it new money an it is taxable.

your argument is extremely flawed. by your reasons investment income wouldnt be taxes either. because you also stated that a stock portfolio has no value. (as a dumb assumption). anything of value given to you as part of an estate above the $5M exemption is taxable as new income.

Net worth is NOT income. What an item is valued at and income are two entirely different things.

You don't know much about business. If you inherit a dairy farm where the land is worth 5 million but the farm itself only produces 1 million a year by your estimation you would have 6 million in income. Wrong. The business produced or you realized 1 million in income the value of the land does not figure into the income calculations.

And I never said an asset like stock has no value. I said the asset in itself is not income. If I buy 1000 shares of X for 1000 dollars today and let it sit for the rest of my life even though that stock will be worth 1 million when I die, it is not income until I realize that 1 million by selling it and I do not pay taxes on it until that income is realized. It does not count as income if I don't sell it.

So if you inherit a stock that is worth 1000 dollars today but don't sell it to realize the gain it is not income.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's never the uber wealthy that get dinged. It's always those on the bubble to BECOMING wealthy. Gotta keep the commoners out of the club.

 

[Douger]

Normal. Another obnoxious **** on a power trip.
Once again. You assholes voted for it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Nice, a anti-semite kanuckian.

 

[Common Sense]

It is not income. It is an asset of the estate. Income is the gain realized by a business or property not the business or property itself.

The last time I checked a business wasn't money it is something that may or may not produce income. Your lottery example is income because it is the gain derived from gambling. You can also deduct the money spent on all your losing lottery tickets from your winnings.

if your net worth increase then your income went up. a business whose value is say $10M means that you are now worth $10M. you didnt earn this money through a regular job, hence it it new money an it is taxable.

your argument is extremely flawed. by your reasons investment income wouldnt be taxes either. because you also stated that a stock portfolio has no value. (as a dumb assumption). anything of value given to you as part of an estate above the $5M exemption is taxable as new income.

Net worth is NOT income. What an item is valued at and income are two entirely different things.

You don't know much about business. If you inherit a dairy farm where the land is worth 5 million but the farm itself only produces 1 million a year by your estimation you would have 6 million in income. Wrong. The business produced or you realized 1 million in income the value of the land does not figure into the income calculations.

And I never said an asset like stock has no value. I said the asset in itself is not income. If I buy 1000 shares of X for 1000 dollars today and let it sit for the rest of my life even though that stock will be worth 1 million when I die, it is not income until I realize that 1 million by selling it and I do not pay taxes on it until that income is realized. It does not count as income if I don't sell it.

So if you inherit a stock that is worth 1000 dollars today but don't sell it to realize the gain it is not income.

nice try, but the moment you inherit something it automatically deemed income. because you never had it before thus it is new and can be taxed. you can argue until you are blue in the face but youre still able to grasp any basic concepts.

well lets take your dairy farm for example. well first off in this case, the first $5M is exempt, so you actually wouldnt owe any money on that first $5M. secondly, did you not just inherit $5M? that meant if you sold the business right then and there you had $5M, because that what the value of the asset was. its your choice to keep it or sell it, but at the moment you acquired it, you made $5M, no matter if you realized it or not. how did you come about this $5M? did you earn it through a job (where it was taxed?) or was it just given to you? it was free! just like if you wont the money at a casino. there are no family property right in the united states. just because a family members own something, that does not give you legal entitlement to it. hence why you have to have a will, or a trust or some other legal product in place to limit the liability. the only thing that is currently tax free is life insurance.

unless youre of the 0.3% of people who the estate tax may affect i dont understand why youre so up in arms about this.

 

[Skull Pilot]

if your net worth increase then your income went up. a business whose value is say $10M means that you are now worth $10M. you didnt earn this money through a regular job, hence it it new money an it is taxable.

your argument is extremely flawed. by your reasons investment income wouldnt be taxes either. because you also stated that a stock portfolio has no value. (as a dumb assumption). anything of value given to you as part of an estate above the $5M exemption is taxable as new income.

Net worth is NOT income. What an item is valued at and income are two entirely different things.

You don't know much about business. If you inherit a dairy farm where the land is worth 5 million but the farm itself only produces 1 million a year by your estimation you would have 6 million in income. Wrong. The business produced or you realized 1 million in income the value of the land does not figure into the income calculations.

And I never said an asset like stock has no value. I said the asset in itself is not income. If I buy 1000 shares of X for 1000 dollars today and let it sit for the rest of my life even though that stock will be worth 1 million when I die, it is not income until I realize that 1 million by selling it and I do not pay taxes on it until that income is realized. It does not count as income if I don't sell it.

So if you inherit a stock that is worth 1000 dollars today but don't sell it to realize the gain it is not income.

nice try, but the moment you inherit something it automatically deemed income. because you never had it before thus it is new and can be taxed. you can argue until you are blue in the face but youre still able to grasp any basic concepts.

well lets take your dairy farm for example. well first off in this case, the first $5M is exempt, so you actually wouldnt owe any money on that first $5M. secondly, did you not just inherit $5M? that meant if you sold the business right then and there you had $5M, because that what the value of the asset was. its your choice to keep it or sell it, but at the moment you acquired it, you made $5M, no matter if you realized it or not. how did you come about this $5M? did you earn it through a job (where it was taxed?) or was it just given to you? it was free! just like if you wont the money at a casino. there are no family property right in the united states. just because a family members own something, that does not give you legal entitlement to it. hence why you have to have a will, or a trust or some other legal product in place to limit the liability. the only thing that is currently tax free is life insurance.

unless youre of the 0.3% of people who the estate tax may affect i dont understand why youre so up in arms about this.

So tell me if an increase in net worth is the same thing as in increase in income is a decrease in net worth the same thing as a decrease in income?

No it's not. therefore net worth is not income.

I don't care if I will or won't be affected by the death tax. The point is that it is nothing but theft of assets already bought and taxed . The fucking government wants to take a second bite of the apple and it should not be allowed.

 

[Muhammed]

As far as the question posited in the OP...

Is this guy the biggest ass in congress?

Well he's got some very assholish competition.

What about Dodd, Van Hollen, Dick Durbin etc?

Sure he's a pencil-necked slimey asshole, but you must admit that there is alot of competition out there.

 

[Common Sense]

Net worth is NOT income. What an item is valued at and income are two entirely different things.

You don't know much about business. If you inherit a dairy farm where the land is worth 5 million but the farm itself only produces 1 million a year by your estimation you would have 6 million in income. Wrong. The business produced or you realized 1 million in income the value of the land does not figure into the income calculations.

And I never said an asset like stock has no value. I said the asset in itself is not income. If I buy 1000 shares of X for 1000 dollars today and let it sit for the rest of my life even though that stock will be worth 1 million when I die, it is not income until I realize that 1 million by selling it and I do not pay taxes on it until that income is realized. It does not count as income if I don't sell it.

So if you inherit a stock that is worth 1000 dollars today but don't sell it to realize the gain it is not income.

nice try, but the moment you inherit something it automatically deemed income. because you never had it before thus it is new and can be taxed. you can argue until you are blue in the face but youre still able to grasp any basic concepts.

well lets take your dairy farm for example. well first off in this case, the first $5M is exempt, so you actually wouldnt owe any money on that first $5M. secondly, did you not just inherit $5M? that meant if you sold the business right then and there you had $5M, because that what the value of the asset was. its your choice to keep it or sell it, but at the moment you acquired it, you made $5M, no matter if you realized it or not. how did you come about this $5M? did you earn it through a job (where it was taxed?) or was it just given to you? it was free! just like if you wont the money at a casino. there are no family property right in the united states. just because a family members own something, that does not give you legal entitlement to it. hence why you have to have a will, or a trust or some other legal product in place to limit the liability. the only thing that is currently tax free is life insurance.

unless youre of the 0.3% of people who the estate tax may affect i dont understand why youre so up in arms about this.

So tell me if an increase in net worth is the same thing as in increase in income is a decrease in net worth the same thing as a decrease in income?

No it's not. therefore net worth is not income.

I don't care if I will or won't be affected by the death tax. The point is that it is nothing but theft of assets already bought and taxed . The fucking government wants to take a second bite of the apple and it should not be allowed.

yes it actually is. if you take losses in a year due to investing or business losses, and you realize those losses, you can write down the amount of your income to the federal limit. you can then carry over the rest of the loss to the next tax year if needed. this becomes known as a write-off. thank you for making my point to easy to explain

you still cant prove that inherited assets aren't new income and taxed as such.

 

[Dr Grump]

you still fail to recognize that when the $ is transferred to the heir, it is still new income to the heir. you try to make the argument that it is family $. but then you fail to see that families can you use inheritance as a tax shelter and hide it from paying any taxes. (which you probably think is a good thing as well.) thus since it is new income, it is taxable. now i have already stated several times that there are many ways to legally transfer businesses and money and be able to avoid the estate tax. this is how the wealthy transfer estates to the children generation after generation. if you read or listen to warren buffet you would also understand more of why the estate tax is a necessity. Buffett backs estate tax, decries wealth gap | Reuters. if we repeal the estate tax, that lost tax revenue must be recovered in some other manner. which will ultimately lead to higher taxes on the middle class. something which you obviously support if you want to once again shift the tax burden off the 0.3% of people who are hit with the estate tax.

you also complain about paying taxes, but you probably enjoy many of the benefits of taxation. such as roads, schools and parks. should we just become a pay as you go society? lets pay for each individual use of everything. then we can make all schools private and all roads toll roads. what about national parks? lets just close them all and let them be run by private corporation. then they can become like disneyland and charge a hundred bucks a person, let corporations advertise on their lands, and sell the rights to the wildlife and natural resources until they are depleted. if youre unhappy with the amount of taxes you pay why dont you go abroad and see what the tax rate and quality of life is like.

England has a top tax rate of 40%
France has a top tax rate of 52%
Germany has a top tax rate of 45%
Australis has a top tax rate of 45%
Spain is also 45%

The US has a top income tax rate of 35% currently, and we dont even provide universal health care. we are not overtaxed as a nation.

I don't fail to see your first point at all. I see it, but disagree with it.
I've never said I disagree with tax, I agree with tax, just not this one.
I am abroad. I live in Australia...where the top tax rate is 45. In NZ (where I was born) it is 33 percent

 

[Dr Grump]

seeing as how a house has value, it can be perceived as income. same with a stock portfolio and a business. its basically free money. just like you get taxed at 55% if you win the lottery. maybe you dont want to see that money taxes either.

Both in NZ (where I lived for 38 years) and Aust. (where I live now), there is no tax on lottery winnings. Same with the UK...

 

[Cuyo]

you still fail to recognize that when the $ is transferred to the heir, it is still new income to the heir.

No, we disagree that it is taxable income to the heir. We recognize the heir is gaining the property of their deceased relative. This often includes the debts too. Those aren't credited against them are they? No. Debts often go along with the estates.

Nobody's answering my question on why they think death automatically gives the government right to a family's property? I suspect it's because it shines a spotlight on their unethical, evil desires.

Debts offset the value of the estate. Not entirely clear on why you would even bring them up.

If you have $10M in assets and $6M in debt, the estate is valued at $4M and therefore not subject to any estate tax.

 

[Cuyo]

I don't fail to see your first point at all. I see it, but disagree with it.
I've never said I disagree with tax, I agree with tax, just not this one.
I am abroad. I live in Australia...where the top tax rate is 45. In NZ (where I was born) it is 33 percent

"A broad" is two words.



Oh stop you know I love ya.

 

[Big Fitz]

Well the person is dead and the government now owns the property does it not? Therefore the debts should be erased or paid for by the government shouldn't it?

 

[Cuyo]

Well the person is dead and the government now owns the property does it not? Therefore the debts should be erased or paid for by the government shouldn't it?

Do I really have to go into the processes that take place when a debtor dies?

In short, no, the government does not own the property, nor does it own the debt of a recently deceased person. Your line of logic is difficult to follow.

Take assets; Subtract debts; Then subtract $5,000,000.00. If the resulting number is below zero, no estate tax is due. If the resulting number is above zero, multiply it by 0.35, and the result of that calculation is the tax due. As has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread, in 99.7% of estates, the result of the first formula is zero or below and hence no tax is due.

 

[Big Fitz]

If the government does not own the property, then why does it presume to have a right to it after the owner dies and bequeaths it on to his heirs? It has no valid claim. Inheritance is not income in the traditional meaning of the term.

Hell, why does the government presume to have any claim on the property while the owner is alive?