Socialized Medicine
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14315) 11 years ago
This is a very interesting video from 1978.

Top
Posted by Heath H (+639) 11 years ago
souix,

You are confusing estate tax with inheritance tax.

Let me try it Bridgier's way.

If YOU are an individual who has accumulated wealth over YOUR lifetime and YOU have PAID TAXES while engaging in the process of that accumulation, do you think it appropriate that your ESTATE will be taxed AGAIN upon your death, PRIOR TO the ESTATE being dispersed to your heirs?



Of course, when your HEIRS receive their INHERITANCE, said inheritance will be taxed as income. Depending on which state you live in (as an heir), you may also be taxed federally AND by your state, but the amount of tax you pay (as an heir) depends on your relationship to the estate.



_____________________________

Bridgier,

I sympathize with and understand how some believe the estate tax exists as, "A far greater crime against the sanctity of money than payroll tax," but personally, I don't consider money sacred. The estate tax is an advantageous grab by the Fed and a tax on assets that have already been taxed. Period.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8481) 11 years ago
The all-knowing wikipedia seems to imply that, at the federal level, there is no distinction between a federal inheritance and estate tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ted_States
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5048) 11 years ago
You're both r-o-n-g. Rong.


It's the DEATH TAX

Booga Booga Booga
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8481) 11 years ago
Why do they hate freedom so much?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5048) 11 years ago
Not sure what the big deal is.

The exclusion amounts on the DEATH TAX are fairly high, ($3.5 million in 2009) so it doesn't affect very many people.

Also, it's pretty easy to avoid if your assets exceed the exclusions. Just sayin'

You should probably kill grampa/grandma in 2010, as there is no DEATH TAX in 2010 and 2010 only.

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (9/29/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8481) 11 years ago
But that money is being taxed twice - it's ruined now. Might as well burn it.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+639) 11 years ago
The all-knowing wikipedia seems to imply that, at the federal level, there is no distinction between a federal inheritance and estate tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ted_States


Bridgier,

Estate tax and Inheritance tax are not one and the same.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+300) 11 years ago
Heath,

Not all of this income has been taxed. Certain assets, real estate, stocks, the value of a business, etc. are all untaxed until the estate tax. If these assets had been disbursed before the individual's death then s/he would be required to pay a tax on said assets.

Moreover, some of these assets have even received income via the Federal Government. e.g. depreciation

Secondly, if I receive income versus an inheritance, then I would be expected to pay income tax on this inherence.

The proponents of doing away with the inheritance tax are just trying to circumvent the American tax code.

.only the little people pay taxes attitude that Leona Helmsley espoused.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6176) 11 years ago
Of course, when your HEIRS receive their INHERITANCE, said inheritance will be taxed as income. Depending on which state you live in (as an heir), you may also be taxed federally AND by your state, but the amount of tax you pay (as an heir) depends on your relationship to the estate.

While I am not an expert on estate tax I have studied income tax law for over 10 years. Actually as an heir, you generally don't pay income tax on any inherited property. You only pay tax on any income that property produced after you inherited it. For example, if grandma dies and leaves you a house worth 250,000 you don't include 250,000 of additional income on your income tax return. Now if you sell the house six months later for 300,000 you must include that 50,000 profit as income (capital gain, actually).

My understanding of federal estate tax is that the corpus of the decedent's estate is taxed, after certain deductions. The tax is to the estate, not the heirs. This is done on Form 706. Heath, there is no federal inheritance tax as you've described as far as I'm aware. Do you have a form number you could point to? Now, if the estate has income after the owner dies but before the property is dispersed to the heirs, the estate may have to file a tax return (Form 1041) reporting that income.

[This message has been edited by Wendy Wilson (9/29/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8481) 11 years ago
Heath - you're right. The estate tax is levied by the feds. Inheritance taxes, if they exist, are levied by the states. Which is a distinction without merit from what you were saying above.

And now that I think about it, I was conflating the two needlessly (thank you Wendy) as well. Estate taxes are paid by the estate, inheritence taxes are paid by the heirs. In the US, the Feds don't tax inheritence, but they do tax the estate.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (9/29/2009)]
Top
Posted by Heath H (+639) 11 years ago
I am usually, "Right," Bridgier. In more ways than one.
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+40) 11 years ago
Back to the begining of this string:

I believe the Party of Fear and Greed, The Republicans are scared to death of changes to health care because they, the 1% who buy the government, will no longer be able to hold the masses as slaves through cruel health insurance rules and availability. Once we can get health care at a reasonable price and can tranfer policies, they no longer have a strangle hold on the american worker.

Please discuss:

[This message has been edited by Ty Livingston (9/29/2009)]
Top
Posted by Heath H (+639) 11 years ago
Funny that you see Republican and Democrat disparity with regard to fear and greed. It's all one big fear and greed party inside the beltway.

Republicans have a, "strangle hold," on the American worker?

Bill Clinton signed GATT into law.
Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law.

Was Bill Clinton a Republican?

There are hundreds, if not thousands of American truck drivers who will argue against the benefits of those trade agreements.

I am not going to pretend that Republicans live to support and promote the American worker, but the Republicans don't have exclusivity with regard to labor legislation that deprives American workers of opportunity, advancement, and prosperity.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+300) 11 years ago
Heath,

"Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch."

"In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the House of Representatives, Clinton introduced clauses intended to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own. The ability to enforce these clauses, especially with Mexico, was considered questionable, and with much consternation and emotional discussion the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. Remarkably, the agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and only 102 Democrats."

"The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (typically abbreviated GATT) was the outcome of the failure of negotiating governments to create the International Trade Organization (ITO). GATT was formed in 1947."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w..._Agreement

Oh I forgot *everything* is Bill Clinton's fault, encluding 9-11.
Top
Posted by Sharon Clarke (+85) 11 years ago
One must concede that the money up for taxation in the event of an inheritance, where one who has accumulated said wealth has the option to dispose of it any way he/she sees fit upon the death of said individual, has been taxed prior to the conveyance and inheritance. Not only should it be taxed less, but it shouldn't be taxed at all. It has already been taxed.

I couldn't agree more Heath!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8481) 11 years ago
Was Bill Clinton a Republican?

Essentially. As much good as it did him in the end.
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+40) 11 years ago
Bill wasn't a republican he kept his job. If he were arepublican he would have lost his job like three speakers of the house pointing hippocritical fingers at him.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+639) 11 years ago
souix,

Why must you rely on Wiki for all of your information? I like Wiki, but you should look further.

It was Clinton who signed NAFTA into law on December 8, 1993.

http://www.history.com/th...le&id=5584

Not the best article, but a reference nonetheless.

NAFTA was, as the article states, a Republican initiative. Read my entire post and you will see that I am not claiming Republicans or Democrats have a better track record regarding American workers. I was addressing Ty's nitwit posting, not trying to start an argument about which president signed what.

But,

Monica Lewinski's boyfriendClinton signed NAFTA into law, dear.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+639) 11 years ago
hippocritical, wha?

Wendy, help me out here. Is he referring to a hippopotamus in need of immediate trauma care?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+300) 11 years ago
LOL.you are castigating me for using Wikipedia yet you back yours up with this day in history.

Obviously you did not read my post.Clinton signed into law what GH Bush negotiated *after* he put in some protections for US business.

BTW I though Ty's post was spot on!

And "am not going to pretend that Republicans live to support and promote the American worker, but the Republicans don't have exclusivity with regard to labor legislation that deprives American workers of opportunity, advancement, and prosperity,"

.but Democrats have a much better record.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+300) 11 years ago
Sharon,

Once again, the beneficiaries have not paid tax on the estate. To use your argument. any person/business that received after tax dollars could avoid paying taxes, because the money has already been taxed.

Additionally, some estates (those invested in real estate, securities, and other income) have never been taxed. These assets get taxed when they exchange hands.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+639) 11 years ago
Regarding NAFTA, yes, you are right. I tend not to read your posts, generally. Since you brought it up, I did go back and read your post. I see that you had it right.

For once.

[This message has been edited by Heath H (9/29/2009)]
Top
Posted by Heath H (+639) 11 years ago
Once again, the beneficiaries have not paid tax on the estate. To use your argument. any person/business that received after tax dollars could avoid paying taxes, because the money has already been taxed.

Additionally, some estates (those invested in real estate, securities, and other income) have never been taxed. These assets get taxed when they exchange hands.


You need to go back and do some reading, yourself.
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+40) 11 years ago
Heath. . .shame you didn't have a real answer, just silly ridicule. Showing your true colors???


Souix- Thanks so much. I learned alot with that one post. Now I can see even more the republican'ts blame on Democrats is just lies, lies, lies.....
Top
Posted by Sharon Clarke (+85) 11 years ago
Sioux,

All I did was agree with a statement that Heath made....simple as that.

You can think whatever you like, and have whatever view, opinion or make whatever choices you wish and I can choose not to pay attention to them if I wish.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+639) 11 years ago
Oh yes, lies, lies, lies. Don't forget misinformation, bait and switch, cover up, deception, double-talk, doublespeak, and misdirection. All of these things a Democrat would NEVER engage in. Ever

For the record, Ty, I believe ridicule is NEVER silly. Ever.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8481) 11 years ago
Yawn. Whatever. What's the conservative solution for healthcare? Tort reform (2% of the cost spent on healthcare in the US) and scapegoating illegals. The status quo isn't sustainable. What's YOUR solution heath?
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+40) 11 years ago
Well Heath, obviously you don't think ridicule is silly, you actually use it as a means of communication. Very sad.
Now, do you actually have an answer for the hundreds of thousands of people who are being ruined financially and emotionally every year because they are too poor to be ill?? Or do you have something silly for them as well???
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+40) 11 years ago
and heath, they all lie. The differnce is a republican lies to line his own pockets or that of his friends. A democrat lies to get what's needed for the people he represents from those too greedy to do what is right. From what I see daily on nearly every news source I truly believe this.

[This message has been edited by Ty Livingston (9/29/2009)]

[This message has been edited by Ty Livingston (9/29/2009)]
Top
Posted by Heath H (+639) 11 years ago
My solution? First and foremost, we should declare open season on all lawyers. Once all the lawyers are dead, we should stop paying our insurance premiums in collective protest. Then, go back to the barter system with hospitals and doctors. Pigs and cows for antibiotics and such. They can't sell what no one will buy. Just don't forget, kill all the lawyers. We must kill all the lawyers.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+639) 11 years ago
and heath, they all lie. The differnce is a republican lies to line his own pockets or that of his friends. A democrat lies to get what's needed for the people he represents from those too greedy to do what is right. From what I see daily on nearly every news source I truly believe this.

HAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHA! AAAAAAAHHH- HAAA HAAAAAA!

Thanks, Ty! Sage poignancy, truly.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+15041) 11 years ago
I like George McGovern's idea for a health care...."Extend medicare to cover all U.S. Citizens"....a nice simple bill. Then a roll call vote....and we can vote out all the bastards who vote against it.

Health care debate....over.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8481) 11 years ago
Pretty much what I thought heath.

Ty, it's not going to do you any good to discuss this with heath. he doesn't care. As has been mentioned previously, he's got his. all you've got is an entitlement mentality. And a conscience as well, but heath considers that more of a bug than a feature. Because heath is a douchebag.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (9/29/2009)]
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+40) 11 years ago
Jeez heath, I did't think you'd just give up like that or was the freakish suggestion you made actually an idea. Sad man, sad. Those without ideas mock what they don't understand.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6176) 11 years ago
Just don't forget, kill all the lawyers. We must kill all the lawyers.

This would work great! Then we could all show up at Heath's house and steal all his stuff and use the proceeds to pay for our health care. Brilliant!
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+40) 11 years ago
Sounds like heath has the Entitlement Mentality. He got lucky and maybe has a few dollars and feels that ENTITLES him to something. So much for responsibility, and love of country. I wonder how many millions of dollars of public resources it took to get him his. Maybe he should move to Dubai with the rest of the irreponsibly greedy. That way we can keep an eye on them and they can stay out of our way.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+639) 11 years ago
Ty, the width and breadth of your knowledge is truly inspiring!
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+40) 11 years ago
Bridgier-
Your right about Heath, it's like talking to his name sake. People will start thinking your crazy talking to inanimate objects.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8481) 11 years ago
Ty, heath doesn't understand any of those concepts you mentioned. he worked hard for his money, and therefore he is morally better than an unlearned such as yourself.
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+40) 11 years ago
Bridgier- I wonder if heath is familiar with the Hutterite practice of Shunning. Maybe it's time we stop reponding to Him??? Just a thought....

[This message has been edited by Ty Livingston (9/29/2009)]
Top
Posted by Heath H (+639) 11 years ago
Bridgier,

Thank you for your perceptively keen insight, although I never laid claim to moral superiority. I do remember pointing out how morally corrupt wealth redistribution based social entitlement programs have created legions of dependant supplicants in America, but hey, if it means you get yours in the end, why toil diligently for your bread and cheese? Right?

With regard to grammar, punctuation, and spelling, only Wendy can claim superiority over those matters. So, that leaves me AND Ty out in the cold with the rest of the unlearned. Thanks for taking up for him, though. Very, "big brother," of you.

I do work hard, but the money I make is not as important to me as it is to you.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+300) 11 years ago
Sharon,
"You can think whatever you like, and have whatever view, opinion or make whatever choices you wish and I can choose not to pay attention to them if I wish."

...Then don't...it makes no difference to me. Like you, I can write whatever I choose.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+300) 11 years ago
Heath,

When have the *beneficiaries* paid tax on the estate?
Top
Posted by Heath H (+639) 11 years ago
souix,

You are, without a doubt, a milescity.com thread savant. I don't want to discuss estate tax versus inheritance tax with you. You are out of my league.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+300) 11 years ago
Thanks, Heath admitting it is the first step.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6176) 11 years ago
He works hard for the money
So hard for it, honey
He works hard for the money
So you'd better treat him right!
Top
Posted by Heath H (+639) 11 years ago
Wendy,

You are just bitter because my comments about lawyers relates to your law background.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6176) 11 years ago
Q: How many lawyers does it take to shingle a roof?

A: Depends on how thin you slice 'em!
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6176) 11 years ago
I found this information about state inheritance tax.

An inheritance tax is an assessment made on the portion of an estate received by an individual. It differs from an estate tax which is a tax levied on an entire estate before it is distributed to individuals. It is strictly a state tax. Eleven states still collect an inheritance tax. They are: Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. In all states, transfers of assets to a spouse are exempt from the tax. In some states, transfers to children and close relatives are also exempt.


http://www.retirementlivi...taxes.html
Top