OK, if that was a quote up there, I think it's somewhat fucked up.
(the last sentence reminds me of that Seinfeld where George went on a job interview -- "I want you to have this job. Of course...")
My father didn't leave a whole lot to my sister and me when he died. After our step-mother got her way with the will, it was shamefully paultry (and not from a greedy, gimme standpoint; he worked his ass off his whole life in order to leave something to his daughters and grandchildren and his wife).
The taxes taken out were in the 50% range. That was our reality.
In the end, the money didn't (doesn't) make a difference.
OK, if that was a quote up there, I think it's somewhat fucked up.
(the last sentence reminds me of that Seinfeld where George went on a job interview -- "I want you to have this job. Of course...")
My father didn't leave a whole lot to my sister and me when he died. After our step-mother got her way with the will, it was shamefully paultry (and not from a greedy, gimme standpoint; he worked his ass off his whole life in order to leave something to his daughters and grandchildren and his wife).
The taxes taken out were in the 50% range. That was our reality.
In the end, the money didn't (doesn't) make a difference.
But the principle? Hell yes.
Sorry for the messed up cut and paste and for your situation of paying 50%. My references that I messed up the cut and paste on is on page 2 of this thread. Interesting reads of the 2 sources I cited. My experience of inheriting money is that I haven't paid a dime as I fall within the $5.25 MM exemption. What state do you live in if you don't mind me asking? The Forbes link has a state by state breakout of "where not to die", I believe.
Also, I'll have an upcoming experience in both the "estate" and "inheritance" taxes in the next year or so. When I do, I'll post an update on how I "make" out. But like you, hedonist, in the end, the money doesn't matter.
Also, I'll have an upcoming experience in both the "estate" and "inheritance" taxes in the next year or so. When I do, I'll post an update on how I "make" out. But like you, hedonist, in the end, the money doesn't matter.
Peace.
Oh man, assuming you mean an expected loss of life to come, I'm really sorry for that.
I live in California...and just checked out the "where not to die" site.
Despite how monetarily fucked up my state is, seems like it's a-OK to die here :P
so you are for free handouts when it comes from a family member? i mean what did the gandolfini family do to "earn" that money? sit there in the theater or watch daddy and hubby on tv? this is why i don't get the philosophy of radical individualism. it's fair when the people in power decide it's fair (like not having any forms of welfare), but when it's their money that is going it's patently unfair (i.e. the death tax). i mean what is the logical conclusion of reducing taxes and not having a death tax? rich people get to keep more of their rich money and poor people get less meaning that social class in this country will calcify more than it already has.
this might get kind of boring for some, so if you don't like numbers skip the bold that is the definite divide between my way of thinking and yours. I don't think me leaving something that I earned to my kids a free handout. Keep in mind that there is an inheritance tax as well. So if I have an estate of 10,000,000 approximately 3,500,000 of that will go to the feds, and some states as well. After that there is ~6,000,000 to be given to my heirs in Minnesota. Who, after receiving the money, pay the state inheritance tax if applicable. So 40% of my money, which had already been taxed mind you when it was earned (if not, like if it was in tax deferred accounts then that tax should absolutely be paid out according to the law) gets taken by the feds and the states simply because I died while have residency there. Seems excessive to me. Inheritance tax I understand much more than a death (estate tax).
But in the end, the money in my account when I died wasn't the gov'ts. It was mine. I should be able to give it to whomever I want. And since MY radical individualism also comes with the caveat that WE are responsible for our neighbors, most of what I end up with will be going to those who don't have. you see, I am all for taking care of the community, I just don't think the best way to do it is through bureaucratic forced giving. That breeds resentment not the feeling of ownership in a community that should come from giving.
The gov't doesn't always know best, and continuing to feed the beast that has shown no signs of ever changing seems strange and wrong to me. The divide between rich and poor is not in any better shape now and yet we give more to the gov't than we ever have before in total dollars. they take it, and put it into the machine, adding to the military budget, continuing to do things around the world that shouldn't be done, and you wonder why I wouldn't want to give them more?
We have a president who I think would tell you he is anti war, but look at what is being done militarily under his watch. It may not have started under his watch, but it sure has continued. I was promised a shut down of Guantanamo, and yet 6 years later, here we are, holding prisoners there. The funding needs to be cut, and the people(us) need to start paying a-fucking-ttention. When I see that, I will support giving the gov't more of my, and by proxy, others earned money.
RW, I understand your frustration with the divide. I just don't believe it is in the governments best interest to ever truly end it. It is in their best interest to increase gov't dependency. I look at the design of the programs through that lens. You think welfare programs are good for folks, and lots do benefit from them...but I ask you, how good can a system be that cuts off benefits based on making 1 dollar more than the cutoff...is someone really that much more self sufficient at 1862 dollars than they are at 1861? well here in MN for your benefits the state would say that you are.
That is why I would prefer my money be able to be given to those programs that can help end it, and the only way to do that is to not have damn near half of it go to the state that will turn around and build a god damn bomb with it and give the spare change to those who can use it most.
The 40% "death tax" rate makes for good sound bites but isn't based in reality. Yes, its on the books but no one pays 40% of the value of their estate to the feds when they die.
Peace.
Today, 99.86 percent of estates owe no estate
tax at all, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax
Policy Center (TPC).4 Among the 3,780 estates
that owe any tax, the “effective” tax rate — that is,
the percentage of the estate’s value that is paid in
taxes — is 16.6 percent, on average.5 That is far
below the top estate tax rate of 40 percent (see
Figure 1).
There are several reasons why the effective rate
my grandfather spent 20 years gifting and donating properties to his children in preparation to minimize the tax liability when he died. They still got hit with quite a tax bill, and it will get worse when my grandmother passes and the trust he had set up becomes theirs.
There is an estate/inheritance tax, most people won't qualify, doesn't mean it is right.
And if it is such a small number, meaningless number, why have it in the first place?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Because its not "small." The impact, whether its adding to the deficit or funding current government programs, is quite large. What bothers me is that the folks against "taxes" or for smaller government, think like their wealth and, in fact, their existence, exists or happens in a vacuum. That the "public good" or "government" had absolutely no bearing on the outcome and if "government" just went away, everything would be so mush rosier, i.e. profitable, healthier, less constrained, what have you or however you define "better." I argue that taxes are a necessary component of ensuring a safer, saner, more civilized society. and those that earn the most, the 1%, should, as a result of the "government" ensuring their success, i.e. making it possible for them to create wealth, should pay more in taxes and give more back, as a percentage, than a working stiff like me (25% tax bracket on wages versus 14% on capital gains). Do you really think Mitt Romney's life style or family would suffer any ill effects when his estate has to pay 6.8% of its total value in an estate tax? We're not going back to the 1890's and William Jennings Bryan or even further back to the wild frontier days when it was every person for themselves.
Repealing the estate tax would
increase the deficit by at least $200 billion
over the next ten years.
TPC estimates that the estate tax will generate about $200 billion over 2013-2022 under current
law.7 This is roughly the same amount that the government will spend over this period on the Food
and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental
Protection Agency combined.
Although significant deficit reduction has been enacted since 2010, when the Simpson-Bowles
deficit-reduction plan was released, most budget experts agree that more is needed to address our
longer-term fiscal problems as the economy strengthens. Even without the loss of these estate tax
revenues, deficit reduction is difficult. Cuts enacted so far will affect funding for programs ranging
from education and medical research to law enforcement and environmental protection, as well as
for programs that alleviate hardship and expand opportunity for low- and moderate-income
Americans. It would be irresponsible for policymakers to add $200 billion to the task of deficit
reduction by cutting the taxes of a few wealthy estates while at the same time asking for further
sacrifices from other Americans.
Because its not "small." The impact, whether its adding to the deficit or funding current government programs, is quite large. What bothers me is that the folks against "taxes" or for smaller government, think like their wealth and, in fact, their existence, exists or happens in a vacuum. That the "public good" or "government" had absolutely no bearing on the outcome and if "government" just went away, everything would be so mush rosier, i.e. profitable, healthier, less constrained, what have you or however you define "better." I argue that taxes are a necessary component of ensuring a safer, saner, more civilized society. and those that earn the most, the 1%, should, as a result of the "government" ensuring their success, i.e. making it possible for them to create wealth, should pay more in taxes and give more back, as a percentage, than a working stiff like me (25% tax bracket on wages versus 14% on capital gains). Do you really think Mitt Romney's life style or family would suffer any ill effects when his estate has to pay 6.8% of its total value in an estate tax? We're not going back to the 1890's and William Jennings Bryan or even further back to the wild frontier days when it was every person for themselves.
Repealing the estate tax would
increase the deficit by at least $200 billion
over the next ten years.
TPC estimates that the estate tax will generate about $200 billion over 2013-2022 under current
law.7 This is roughly the same amount that the government will spend over this period on the Food
and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental
Protection Agency combined.
Although significant deficit reduction has been enacted since 2010, when the Simpson-Bowles
deficit-reduction plan was released, most budget experts agree that more is needed to address our
longer-term fiscal problems as the economy strengthens. Even without the loss of these estate tax
revenues, deficit reduction is difficult. Cuts enacted so far will affect funding for programs ranging
from education and medical research to law enforcement and environmental protection, as well as
for programs that alleviate hardship and expand opportunity for low- and moderate-income
Americans. It would be irresponsible for policymakers to add $200 billion to the task of deficit
reduction by cutting the taxes of a few wealthy estates while at the same time asking for further
sacrifices from other Americans.
Peace.
It would be irresponsible for policy makers to run a trillion dollar deficit yearly . yet they do it routinely. If the estate tax adds 20 million a year to the deficit that is already near 1,000,000,000,000. Meaning roughly .00002 percent of the deficit. Meaningless and miniscule. They could make that up by simply switching to cloud printing at all federal offices and one less trip by the president.
I don't think anyone's lifestyle would change drastically if they had 200 million and gave to the gov't 50 of that. even 10 of that...but it shouldn't be for dying. That is silly. Inheritance tax, sure it is like other income, Estate tax, no.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It would be irresponsible for policy makers to run a trillion dollar deficit yearly . yet they do it routinely. If the estate tax adds 20 million a year to the deficit that is already near 1,000,000,000,000. Meaning roughly .00002 percent of the deficit. Meaningless and miniscule. They could make that up by simply switching to cloud printing at all federal offices and one less trip by the president.
I don't think anyone's lifestyle would change drastically if they had 200 million and gave to the gov't 50 of that. even 10 of that...but it shouldn't be for dying. That is silly. Inheritance tax, sure it is like other income, Estate tax, no.
Not sure I follow your logic here, other than that the concept has precedent in the corporate dividend tax (i.e., taxation of already-taxed earnings that are voluntarily distributed).
Aside from that, seriously, Mike Pegg 2020. Get on the ticket.
Because its not "small." The impact, whether its adding to the deficit or funding current government programs, is quite large. What bothers me is that the folks against "taxes" or for smaller government, think like their wealth and, in fact, their existence, exists or happens in a vacuum. That the "public good" or "government" had absolutely no bearing on the outcome and if "government" just went away, everything would be so mush rosier, i.e. profitable, healthier, less constrained, what have you or however you define "better." I argue that taxes are a necessary component of ensuring a safer, saner, more civilized society. and those that earn the most, the 1%, should, as a result of the "government" ensuring their success, i.e. making it possible for them to create wealth, should pay more in taxes and give more back, as a percentage, than a working stiff like me (25% tax bracket on wages versus 14% on capital gains). Do you really think Mitt Romney's life style or family would suffer any ill effects when his estate has to pay 6.8% of its total value in an estate tax? We're not going back to the 1890's and William Jennings Bryan or even further back to the wild frontier days when it was every person for themselves.
Repealing the estate tax would
increase the deficit by at least $200 billion
over the next ten years.
TPC estimates that the estate tax will generate about $200 billion over 2013-2022 under current
law.7 This is roughly the same amount that the government will spend over this period on the Food
and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental
Protection Agency combined.
Although significant deficit reduction has been enacted since 2010, when the Simpson-Bowles
deficit-reduction plan was released, most budget experts agree that more is needed to address our
longer-term fiscal problems as the economy strengthens. Even without the loss of these estate tax
revenues, deficit reduction is difficult. Cuts enacted so far will affect funding for programs ranging
from education and medical research to law enforcement and environmental protection, as well as
for programs that alleviate hardship and expand opportunity for low- and moderate-income
Americans. It would be irresponsible for policymakers to add $200 billion to the task of deficit
reduction by cutting the taxes of a few wealthy estates while at the same time asking for further
sacrifices from other Americans.
Peace.
It would be irresponsible for policy makers to run a trillion dollar deficit yearly . yet they do it routinely. If the estate tax adds 20 million a year to the deficit that is already near 1,000,000,000,000. Meaning roughly .00002 percent of the deficit. Meaningless and miniscule. They could make that up by simply switching to cloud printing at all federal offices and one less trip by the president.
I don't think anyone's lifestyle would change drastically if they had 200 million and gave to the gov't 50 of that. even 10 of that...but it shouldn't be for dying. That is silly. Inheritance tax, sure it is like other income, Estate tax, no.
The first $5.25MM is exempt and anything over that is subject to the 40% estate tax but the effective estate tax rate ends up being around 6-7% and only around 1.5% of estates are even subject to the federal estate tax. The individual states are the greedier of the 2 entities and even then, it varies widely amongst them.
It would be $20 Billion a year, $200 billion over 10 years. When compared to the overall size of the deficit of a trillion, yes, its small. But since when has $20 billion dollars not been a significant amount of money? And look at the three departments that amount of money represents, EPA, FDA & CDCP. And again, it affects 1.5% of the population. So, it makes for a great sound bite when Rand Paul speaks from the floor of the senate or his father Ron, prior to retirement, spoke from the floor of the house to scare most people into thinking they have to pay a "death" tax (Michelle Bachmann anyone?). The biggest proponents of the "death" or estate tax seem to be the states, which the Tea Party and Libertarians are always saying, "give the power back to the states." A more appropriate thread title might have been, "The worst State government theft."
And if its such a meaningless number, why the kerfuffle?
I lost my father on June 4th and I will soon find out what the tax implications are for his estate and my inheritance. But as hedonist stated, in the end, the money doesn't really matter.
And if its such a meaningless number, why the kerfuffle?
I lost my father on June 4th and I will soon find out what the tax implications are for his estate and my inheritance. But as hedonist stated, in the end, the money doesn't really matter.
Peace.
First I want to say sorry for your loss. I lost my father almost 3 years ago now out of nowhere and it still feels fresh.
I wasn't just referring to the federal gov't. They are one of the few who do an estate tax. I think the state gov'ts that tax an estate are are wrong as well. Most states do an inheritance tax. One happens for dying, the other for receiving income. I am hesitantly ok to have 1 of them, but taxing someone for dying is stupid.
I don't know why in my head I switched it to 200 million when I did the math, thanks for the catch. Thanks, but the 20 billion dollar number becomes 2% of the trillion dollar deficits that have been run. That isn't even measuring it against the percent of the entire amount of revenue.
The amount of money doesn't matter to me, it is the principle of being taxed FOR dying. Tax the living when they receive the money, do not tax the dead. There are a lot of taxes i don't agree with, the amounts of each may seem insignificant, but they add up to allowing a bloated war machine the money to operate the same way they always have. What is the impetus to change if they just keep on getting money to do all the evil shit they want?
So you may say why fight it if the number is small, I say why ask for it if the number you get is small in comparison to all the money spent on dumb/evil shit, and could be easily made up for in utilizing the inheritance tax if you just HAVE to have the money
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It would be irresponsible for policy makers to run a trillion dollar deficit yearly . yet they do it routinely. If the estate tax adds 20 million a year to the deficit that is already near 1,000,000,000,000. Meaning roughly .00002 percent of the deficit. Meaningless and miniscule. They could make that up by simply switching to cloud printing at all federal offices and one less trip by the president.
I don't think anyone's lifestyle would change drastically if they had 200 million and gave to the gov't 50 of that. even 10 of that...but it shouldn't be for dying. That is silly. Inheritance tax, sure it is like other income, Estate tax, no.
Not sure I follow your logic here, other than that the concept has precedent in the corporate dividend tax (i.e., taxation of already-taxed earnings that are voluntarily distributed).
Aside from that, seriously, Mike Pegg 2020. Get on the ticket.
WAY TOO MANY skeletons...but thanks
Logic being that if someone leaves you an inheritance, family or friend, that could be added to your taxable income, or taxed separately as income. I don't like the concept of either to be honest, but one is easier to swallow
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
This is the text of a letter sent on Wednesday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper by U.S. consumer advocate Ralph Nader concerning the possibility of U.S. telecom giant Verizon entering the Canadian market:
Dear Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
I read with interest that you are considering allowing Verizon Communications to operate in Canada with unique acquisition rights.
Bad idea.
Before you proceed any further, I suggest that you read a report by the highly regarded Center for Tax Justice and Good Jobs First titled, “Unpaid Bills: How Verizon Shortchanges Government Through Tax Dodging and Subsidies.”
Bottom line: Verizon is one of the country’s most aggressive corporate tax dodgers.
Related:
· Verizon bargaining for better Canadian terms: Analysts
· Industry Minister James Moore denies 'courting' Verizon
· Harper betrays Canada’s interests in telecom fight
· Ralph Nader’s life in three words: ‘I was right’
The report found that Verizon enjoyed some $14 billion in federal and state corporate income tax subsidies in the 2008-2010 period, even though it earned $33.4 billion in pre-tax U.S. income during that time.
At the federal level, Verizon should have paid about $11.4 billion at the statutory rate of 35 per cent during the three-year period.
Instead, it actually got $951 million in rebates, putting its federal tax subsidies at $12.3 billion.
Its effective federal tax rate was 2.9 per cent.
The report found that at the state level, Verizon should have paid about $2.3 billion in corporate income taxes during the period but it paid only $866 million.
Its aggregate state rate was only 2.6 per cent, far below the weighted state average rate of 6.8 per cent.
This gave it state tax subsidies of about $1.4 billion.
Verizon also used a special tax loophole called the Reverse Morris Trust to avoid paying about $1.5 billion in federal, state and local taxes on the sale of its landline assets in various states.
The report found that Verizon also aggressively seeks state and local tax subsidies through credits, abatements and exemptions.
There is no centralized reporting on these subsidies, but the report documents $180 million in special tax breaks and grants Verizon and Verizon Wireless received in 13 states.
In addition to aggressively dodging taxes, Verizon also overtly rips off our federal government.
In April 2011, for example, Verizon paid $93.5 million to settle whistleblower charges that it had billed the government for “tax-like” surcharges it wasn’t entitled to impose on the government.
Hidden surcharges on communication services have long been an unwelcome cost to business and consumers, and the General Services Administration had negotiated a firm, fixed-price contract with limited surcharges precisely to avoid being hit with hidden surcharges, the whistleblower alleged.
“Verizon was not only charging the government for the costs associated with communication services, but it also was pumping up its revenues by charging the government for Verizon’s own property taxes and other costs of doing business,” said Colette Matzzie, a Washington, D.C., attorney with Phillips & Cohen LLP, who represented the whistleblower. “Under federal law, Verizon was responsible for paying those costs, not the government.”
The settlement agreement covers the period from 2004 to 2010, when Verizon allegedly billed the government for a variety of surcharges including property tax surcharges, carrier cost recovery charges, state telecommunications relay service surcharges and public utility commission fee surcharges.
Question: why would you allow one of our country’s most aggressive tax dodgers, a company with a track record of overtly ripping off our government, into your country?
What’s bad for the United States will be bad for Canada.
this is another reason people should store their cash as far away from the governments knowledge they even have monies on hand. if i ever had kids & the government was swooping in to grab 50% of my life's work i'd roll over in my grave.
store cash, store cash, store cash
also, put monies into investments & things the government cannot grab if such things exist
Comments
(the last sentence reminds me of that Seinfeld where George went on a job interview -- "I want you to have this job. Of course...")
My father didn't leave a whole lot to my sister and me when he died. After our step-mother got her way with the will, it was shamefully paultry (and not from a greedy, gimme standpoint; he worked his ass off his whole life in order to leave something to his daughters and grandchildren and his wife).
The taxes taken out were in the 50% range. That was our reality.
In the end, the money didn't (doesn't) make a difference.
But the principle? Hell yes.
Sorry for the messed up cut and paste and for your situation of paying 50%. My references that I messed up the cut and paste on is on page 2 of this thread. Interesting reads of the 2 sources I cited. My experience of inheriting money is that I haven't paid a dime as I fall within the $5.25 MM exemption. What state do you live in if you don't mind me asking? The Forbes link has a state by state breakout of "where not to die", I believe.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I live in California...and just checked out the "where not to die" site.
Despite how monetarily fucked up my state is, seems like it's a-OK to die here :P
my grandfather spent 20 years gifting and donating properties to his children in preparation to minimize the tax liability when he died. They still got hit with quite a tax bill, and it will get worse when my grandmother passes and the trust he had set up becomes theirs.
There is an estate/inheritance tax, most people won't qualify, doesn't mean it is right.
And if it is such a small number, meaningless number, why have it in the first place?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Repealing the estate tax would
increase the deficit by at least $200 billion
over the next ten years.
TPC estimates that the estate tax will generate about $200 billion over 2013-2022 under current
law.7 This is roughly the same amount that the government will spend over this period on the Food
and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental
Protection Agency combined.
Although significant deficit reduction has been enacted since 2010, when the Simpson-Bowles
deficit-reduction plan was released, most budget experts agree that more is needed to address our
longer-term fiscal problems as the economy strengthens. Even without the loss of these estate tax
revenues, deficit reduction is difficult. Cuts enacted so far will affect funding for programs ranging
from education and medical research to law enforcement and environmental protection, as well as
for programs that alleviate hardship and expand opportunity for low- and moderate-income
Americans. It would be irresponsible for policymakers to add $200 billion to the task of deficit
reduction by cutting the taxes of a few wealthy estates while at the same time asking for further
sacrifices from other Americans.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It would be irresponsible for policy makers to run a trillion dollar deficit yearly . yet they do it routinely. If the estate tax adds 20 million a year to the deficit that is already near 1,000,000,000,000. Meaning roughly .00002 percent of the deficit. Meaningless and miniscule. They could make that up by simply switching to cloud printing at all federal offices and one less trip by the president.
I don't think anyone's lifestyle would change drastically if they had 200 million and gave to the gov't 50 of that. even 10 of that...but it shouldn't be for dying. That is silly. Inheritance tax, sure it is like other income, Estate tax, no.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Aside from that, seriously, Mike Pegg 2020. Get on the ticket.
The first $5.25MM is exempt and anything over that is subject to the 40% estate tax but the effective estate tax rate ends up being around 6-7% and only around 1.5% of estates are even subject to the federal estate tax. The individual states are the greedier of the 2 entities and even then, it varies widely amongst them.
It would be $20 Billion a year, $200 billion over 10 years. When compared to the overall size of the deficit of a trillion, yes, its small. But since when has $20 billion dollars not been a significant amount of money? And look at the three departments that amount of money represents, EPA, FDA & CDCP. And again, it affects 1.5% of the population. So, it makes for a great sound bite when Rand Paul speaks from the floor of the senate or his father Ron, prior to retirement, spoke from the floor of the house to scare most people into thinking they have to pay a "death" tax (Michelle Bachmann anyone?). The biggest proponents of the "death" or estate tax seem to be the states, which the Tea Party and Libertarians are always saying, "give the power back to the states." A more appropriate thread title might have been, "The worst State government theft."
And if its such a meaningless number, why the kerfuffle?
I lost my father on June 4th and I will soon find out what the tax implications are for his estate and my inheritance. But as hedonist stated, in the end, the money doesn't really matter.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Also, I heartily approve of the use of "kerfuffle".
Carry on.
See? This is why I love coming on here, oh the humor, oh the humor!
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
First I want to say sorry for your loss. I lost my father almost 3 years ago now out of nowhere and it still feels fresh.
I wasn't just referring to the federal gov't. They are one of the few who do an estate tax. I think the state gov'ts that tax an estate are are wrong as well. Most states do an inheritance tax. One happens for dying, the other for receiving income. I am hesitantly ok to have 1 of them, but taxing someone for dying is stupid.
I don't know why in my head I switched it to 200 million when I did the math, thanks for the catch. Thanks, but the 20 billion dollar number becomes 2% of the trillion dollar deficits that have been run. That isn't even measuring it against the percent of the entire amount of revenue.
The amount of money doesn't matter to me, it is the principle of being taxed FOR dying. Tax the living when they receive the money, do not tax the dead. There are a lot of taxes i don't agree with, the amounts of each may seem insignificant, but they add up to allowing a bloated war machine the money to operate the same way they always have. What is the impetus to change if they just keep on getting money to do all the evil shit they want?
So you may say why fight it if the number is small, I say why ask for it if the number you get is small in comparison to all the money spent on dumb/evil shit, and could be easily made up for in utilizing the inheritance tax if you just HAVE to have the money
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
WAY TOO MANY skeletons...but thanks
Logic being that if someone leaves you an inheritance, family or friend, that could be added to your taxable income, or taxed separately as income. I don't like the concept of either to be honest, but one is easier to swallow
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commenta ... rizon.html
This is the text of a letter sent on Wednesday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper by U.S. consumer advocate Ralph Nader concerning the possibility of U.S. telecom giant Verizon entering the Canadian market:
Dear Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
I read with interest that you are considering allowing Verizon Communications to operate in Canada with unique acquisition rights.
Bad idea.
Before you proceed any further, I suggest that you read a report by the highly regarded Center for Tax Justice and Good Jobs First titled, “Unpaid Bills: How Verizon Shortchanges Government Through Tax Dodging and Subsidies.”
Bottom line: Verizon is one of the country’s most aggressive corporate tax dodgers.
Related:
· Verizon bargaining for better Canadian terms: Analysts
· Industry Minister James Moore denies 'courting' Verizon
· Harper betrays Canada’s interests in telecom fight
· Ralph Nader’s life in three words: ‘I was right’
The report found that Verizon enjoyed some $14 billion in federal and state corporate income tax subsidies in the 2008-2010 period, even though it earned $33.4 billion in pre-tax U.S. income during that time.
At the federal level, Verizon should have paid about $11.4 billion at the statutory rate of 35 per cent during the three-year period.
Instead, it actually got $951 million in rebates, putting its federal tax subsidies at $12.3 billion.
Its effective federal tax rate was 2.9 per cent.
The report found that at the state level, Verizon should have paid about $2.3 billion in corporate income taxes during the period but it paid only $866 million.
Its aggregate state rate was only 2.6 per cent, far below the weighted state average rate of 6.8 per cent.
This gave it state tax subsidies of about $1.4 billion.
Verizon also used a special tax loophole called the Reverse Morris Trust to avoid paying about $1.5 billion in federal, state and local taxes on the sale of its landline assets in various states.
The report found that Verizon also aggressively seeks state and local tax subsidies through credits, abatements and exemptions.
There is no centralized reporting on these subsidies, but the report documents $180 million in special tax breaks and grants Verizon and Verizon Wireless received in 13 states.
In addition to aggressively dodging taxes, Verizon also overtly rips off our federal government.
In April 2011, for example, Verizon paid $93.5 million to settle whistleblower charges that it had billed the government for “tax-like” surcharges it wasn’t entitled to impose on the government.
Hidden surcharges on communication services have long been an unwelcome cost to business and consumers, and the General Services Administration had negotiated a firm, fixed-price contract with limited surcharges precisely to avoid being hit with hidden surcharges, the whistleblower alleged.
“Verizon was not only charging the government for the costs associated with communication services, but it also was pumping up its revenues by charging the government for Verizon’s own property taxes and other costs of doing business,” said Colette Matzzie, a Washington, D.C., attorney with Phillips & Cohen LLP, who represented the whistleblower. “Under federal law, Verizon was responsible for paying those costs, not the government.”
The settlement agreement covers the period from 2004 to 2010, when Verizon allegedly billed the government for a variety of surcharges including property tax surcharges, carrier cost recovery charges, state telecommunications relay service surcharges and public utility commission fee surcharges.
Question: why would you allow one of our country’s most aggressive tax dodgers, a company with a track record of overtly ripping off our government, into your country?
What’s bad for the United States will be bad for Canada.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
Call me crazy.
I'm somewhat inclined to agree based on the obvious waste that will happen, however I can't go with it. It still wouldn't be right.
store cash, store cash, store cash
also, put monies into investments & things the government cannot grab if such things exist
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce