[talaniman]

The policy would include a $3.5 million exemption ($7 million for married couples), leaving 99.75% of all estates fully exempt. The taxable portion of estates beyond these exemptions would be subject to a progressive series of marginal tax rates as follows: a 45% rate up to $10 million; a 50% rate up to $50 million; a 55% rate up to $500 million; and a 65% rate on the portion of estates worth over $500 million.34

http://wiki.fool.com/The_Use_of_Hedge_Funds_in_401(k

There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs.

??

The added tax is going to hit the middle class and poor the most as does driving up the cost of anything.

As does a flat tax on wages. And the SS rules have been the rules for a long time I fail to see the relevance. In addition the scoring that was done was based on he CBO scoring of the Obama budget,and this is the link that's was used to fully explain it.

http://epi.3cdn.net/55d8ba5873e5bd097e_avm6b8rb1.pdf

And I see nothing in this bill that affects anyone's 401k, so please point it out.

[paraclete]

That looks like a heafty estate tax, you could call it confiscation because it would cause forced realisation of assets to pay the tax. Such taxes are regressive resulting in tax evasion behaviour. I can see now why the rich give so much away and establish trusts to hold their assets

[cdad]

That link went bad. It explained how 401K and hedge funds were related. It actually explained it pretty well. How 401k money can be used in hedge funds and how the related tax your speaking of can affect it.

The SSI rules won't change but what they are asking for is more money to pay for the system.

The fair tax is much better then the flat tax.

The numbers your quoting create a deficit and you don't conceive they will want to adjust that if it were to pass? And is there a real reason to punish the rich with a 65% tax penalty ?

I still wonder why you want to punish success ?

[talaniman]

Because it take all of us to get us out of this malaise, and the ones who have benefited the most would seem the ones who would want it the most. That's not punishment, its joint effort.

Remember what I said about adjustments, and flexibility to overcome obstacles? Well this is that flexibility. Balancing a budget and expansion of growth, and all our children will be left with something to build on.

You want tax cuts back? Then help work to put us on a path you can afford it. Then rich guys wouldn't have to lie and call themselves "job creators".

[paraclete]

I agree dad you should not penalise success, but the tax burden has to fall equitably, those who accumulate benefit from public provided inferstructure, stability from government programs, etc and therefore should contribute more, but taxation should not be punitive of confiscation, these are outmoded ideas

[cdad]

Because it take all of us to get us out of this malaise, and the ones who have benefited the most would seem the ones who would want it the most. Thats not punishment, its joint effort.

Remember what I said about adjustments, and flexibility to overcome obstacles? Well this is that flexibility. Balancing a budget and expansion of growth, and all our children will be left with something to build on.

You want tax cuts back? Then help work to put us on a path you can afford it. Then rich guys wouldn't have to lie and call themselves "job creators".

What I want doesn't make a difference. I believe in the fair tax. But because it is fair its not on the politicians radar. It removes the power they have. It would crate jobs and bring this economy back booming.

I also believe an estate tax of 65% is punitive. If a person came up with an idea and saw it come to fruition and made 1 billion dollars. Then why is the government entitled to 650 million of it? Most people with money like that don't hoarde the money. They spend wisely and they also give to charities. It doesn't matter the political lean they give back in their own way.

Look at the evolution of Microsoft. Is there a reason for Bill Gates to be punished for living out the American dream ?

If you teach your children to succeed do you really want to tell them just don't succeed too much because it is bad for you.

[tomder55]

Most people with money like that don't hoarde the money. They spend wisely and they also give to charities. It doesn't matter the political lean they give back in their own way.

Look at the evolution of Microsoft. Is there a reason for Bill Gates to be punished for living out the American dream ?

If you teach your children to succeed do you really want to tell them just don't succeed too much because it is bad for you

It is clear that the left objects to charitible giving because they don't control where it goes.

[talaniman]

I may be wrong but Bill Gates and others like him have many options in the tax code to mitigate their tax burden, and correct me if I am wrong but hasn't he put half his wealth into charitable foundations to direct his wealth

Financials - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

In October of 2006, our trustees created a two-entity structure: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (foundation) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust (trust). Both entities are tax-exempt private foundations that are structured as a charitable trust. Each entity has a distinct purpose, as explained below.

So lets drop this punishment notion, as we saw the last rich guy running for president NOT take all his deductions for charity at the time to keep his taxes on paper at least high enough to be respectable(?), and he still can take the deduction in the next 3 years.

That's some punishment, and pales in light of cuts to senior and children who cannot afford heat, shelter, and food. Now if these foundations and charities were addressing those needs, you would have a stronger case, but sorry right now you do not.

So maybe we need to better define what fair is because because 10% from a poor guy and 10% percent froma rich guy is in no way equal, or fair.

it is clear that the left objects to charitible giving because they don't control where it goes.

Nice spin, but no matter where it goes it lowers tax burdens on extremely wealthy people.

[excon]

Hello dad:

I also believe an estate tax of 65% is punitive. If a person came up with an idea and saw it come to fruition and made 1 billion dollars. Then why is the government entitled to 650 million of it?

From a businessman's perspective, because there's STILL $350 million left over for me. And, if I have to give the government $650 million in order to make $350 million for my family, I'm going to DO it. Look.. I don't like taxes.. But, they've NEVER stopped me from pursing the American Dream..

Plus, I'm an American.. I'm HERE because I LOVE my country - not because I make money here... If the government took MORE, I STILL wouldn't leave...

Excon

[paraclete]

Tal you don't get it, if you have tax at punative levels then your wealthy people will protect themselves. A 65% estsate tax is regressive, not progressive. I don't believe in estate taxes at all unless you are going to abolish income tax. The government should only get one opportunity to collect tax, they either get it coming or they get it going. Obviously waiting for the population to die isn't effective as a revenue measure so estate taxes should be abolished in favour of higher income taxes

[talaniman]

You say why punish success, I say why punish misfortune?

[tomder55]

What happened to no deductions and lower rates ? You can't give me a good argument against that... except your notions about punishing success.

[paraclete]

Hello dad:

From a businessman's perspective, because there's STILL $350 million left over for me. And, if I have to give the government $650 million in order to make $350 million for my family, I'm gonna DO it. Look.. I don't like taxes.. But, they've NEVER stopped me from pursing the American Dream..

Plus, I'm an American.. I'm HERE because I LOVE my country - not because I make money here... If the government took MORE, I STILL wouldn't leave...

excon

Ex you miss the point in order to give the government their money assets are going to have to be liquidated and that usually isn't effective and can lead to big losses. You could wind up eliminating the entire portfolio ans still not have enough to meet the tax so then you have given them everything but you don't care you are dead

[talaniman]

Tal you don't get it, if you have tax at punative levels then your wealthy people will protect themselves. A 65% estsate tax is regressive, not progressive. I don't believe in estate taxes at all unless you are going to abolish income tax. The government should only get one opportunity to collect tax, they either get it coming or they get it going. Obviously waiting for the population to die isn't effective as a revenue measure so estate taxes should be abolished in favour of higher income taxes

What part of being able to mitigate your tax burden is it you do not understand? NOBODY will pay a 65% rate, not even close.

How do you defend corporate welfare and say welfare for people is evil?

[speechlesstx]

What part of being able to mitigate your tax burden is it you do not understand? NOBODY will pay a 65% rate, not even close.

How do you defend corporate welfare and say welfare for people is evil?

How do keep plying the myth that the right hates poor people?

[speechlesstx]

it is clear that the left objects to charitible giving because they don't control where it goes.

That would be why they don't give a rip about redefining church ministries and I'm guessing why IRS audits of charities have gone up 79% under Obama.

P.S. And they whine about us hating poor people?

[NeedKarma]

That would be why they don't give a rip about redefining church ministries and I'm guessing why IRS audits of charities have gone up 79% under Obama.

Because fraud is bad no matter who does it. If they have done nothing wrong then a clear audit will result.

[talaniman]

How do keep plying the myth that the right hates poor people?

Because the right talks about them like undeserving dogs, and want them to give more of what they don't have, while taking away what they need just to get by. That's why.

Maybe not you personally, but you voted for those that have said so, and done so in writing.

[speechlesstx]

Because fraud is bad no matter who does it. If they have done nothing wrong then a clear audit will result.

And every dollar they have to spend trying to prove their innocence is a dollar that doesn't go to that person in need. A 79% increase is a witch hunt.

[speechlesstx]

Because the right talks about them like undeserving dogs, and want them to give more of what they don't have, while taking away what they need just to get by. Thats why.

That's just another damn lie.