PDA

View Full Version : Dying after 2012 not good idea



SassyLady
07-20-2012, 12:44 AM
Why does the government think they get over 50% of dead person's assets? This tax has always just boggled my brain. Especially, when there is no "cash" to pay the tax and the heirs have to sell off property to pay the tax. This tax is worth having a tea party.


Don't Die in 2013: Confiscatory 55% Death Tax Set to Take Effect



In 2013, the death tax will revert to its antiquated, pre-2001 form.
This content is provided by the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation (http://www.americansfortaxreformfoundation.org/).
Current Law

The 2001 tax relief bill (EGTRRA), drastically reduced the impact of the death tax over the course of a decade, so that it was eliminated entirely for one year in 2010 — a good year to die, joked a number of pundits. The bill lowered marginal rates and increased the applicable exclusion amount, but it also included a provision allowing individuals to carry over exclusion dollars that were unused by their spouse at the time of his or her death. This “portability” measure effectively increased the applicable exclusion for many households, in some instances putting millions of dollars beyond the reach of the federal government.

The death tax rose from the grave at the end of 2010, with a Bush-era top rate of 35% and an applicable exclusion amount of $5 million ($5.12 million in 2012).
Scheduled Changes

In 2013, the death tax will revert to its antiquated, pre-2001 form. The applicable exclusion amount will plummet to $1,000,000, and the top marginal rate will leap twenty points to 55%. A 5% surtax will also return, to be levied on estates between $10 million and $17 million. This raises the top effective rate of the death tax to 60%.

ATRF Analysis
According to research (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3037&DocTypeID=7) by the Tax Policy Center, if the current death tax expires, then the resulting, stricter exemption threshold will force 114,600 estates to file for the tax in 2013 — this represents a 13-fold increase from the previous year’s 8,800 estates, and countless wasted hours filling out tax paperwork. Of that cohort, an unfortunate 52,500 will be liable for the tax, way up from 3,300.

While those 52,500 taxpayers only represent 2% of those who die each year, no one should be fooled into thinking that the effects of this tax fall only on the proverbial “one percent.” The economic incidence of the death tax is far broader, because it causes many wealthy individuals to save less, choosing instead to retire early or, as Milton Friedman put it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4), “dissipate their wealth on high living.” This reduction in savings means a concomitant reduction in investment, lessening the flow of capital to businesses and organizations where countless ordinary Americans are employed.

Additionally, use of estate planning lawyers, life insurance trusts, and inter vivos gifting (all common practice in upper-income circles) allows many wealthy individuals to minimize their estate liability, so that the death tax ends up harming only those who could not or chose not to navigate a maze of legal loopholes.

But the ills of a 55% death tax are not just speculative. Prior to 2001, when the death tax stood at 55%, a 1994 study (http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/bp9.pdf) by the Tax Foundation found that a 55% estate tax “has roughly the same effect on entrepreneurial incentives as a doubling of income tax rates.” The same death tax today, then, would have similar decision-distorting economic effects as an 80% income tax on affected parties. A 1992 study (http://ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/009a9a91c225e83d852567ed006212d8/d4945a8128c6353f8525686c00686e24/$file/v45n2119.pdf) that was generally pro-redistribution piled on, finding that the paperwork and compliance costs of the estate tax largely cancelled out any revenue raised from the tax.

This consistent finding — that the death tax is effectively revenue neutral (http://www.nber.org/papers/w2087), and is a net economic drain — exposes the class warfare aims of death tax advocates. The other reasons listed merely reinforce the point: that the death tax increase should be vigorously opposed.



Read more: http://atr.org/dont-die-confiscatory-percent-death-tax-a7051#ixzz218YFSJxu

jafar00
07-20-2012, 04:06 PM
You might like to note that a death tax is illegal according to Sharia law. ;)

Inheritance is a God given right and no government should have the right to take a single cent of it.

Little-Acorn
07-20-2012, 04:26 PM
You might like to note that a death tax is illegal according to Sharia law. ;)

Inheritance is a God given right and no government should have the right to take a single cent of it.

Even when the death is the result of an "honor killing"?

revelarts
07-20-2012, 04:39 PM
You might like to note that a death tax is illegal according to Sharia law. ;)

Inheritance is a God given right and no government should have the right to take a single cent of it.

credit where credit is due, That is One good thing about Sharia.
Isn't lending at interest against Sharia law as well?

Thunderknuckles
07-20-2012, 04:43 PM
credit where credit is due, That is One good thing about Sharia.
Isn't lending at interest against Sharia law as well?
Yeah, but Islamic banks have ways around that.

Abbey Marie
07-20-2012, 04:43 PM
You might like to note that a death tax is illegal according to Sharia law. ;)

Inheritance is a God given right and no government should have the right to take a single cent of it.

As long as it goes to male heirs, right?

SassyLady
07-21-2012, 12:53 AM
You might like to note that a death tax is illegal according to Sharia law. ;)

Inheritance is a God given right and no government should have the right to take a single cent of it.

As a woman, would I inherit anything? I'd rather pay my government 55% and keep 45% than to have it all go to someone who really didn't deserve it just because they were a male relative.

jafar00
07-27-2012, 12:33 AM
Even when the death is the result of an "honor killing"?

Yes, even if murder was the cause.


credit where credit is due, That is One good thing about Sharia.
Isn't lending at interest against Sharia law as well?

Yes it is.


Yeah, but Islamic banks have ways around that.

Indeed they do and it is a better way of going about it.

Say I want a housing loan. To put it in simple terms, the bank would buy the house (or car etc..) and become the owner. I would then pay back the loan at an agreed amount per month plus pay rent to the bank (because they own the house) until the loan is paid back. It is better because you know exactly how much you are paying up to the last payment, and the bank is also sharing the risk in the transaction. Business transactions where the risk is one sided are also forbidden.

avatar4321
07-27-2012, 12:45 AM
There is an easy way around that. Jon Huntsman Sr is planning to do just that.

fj1200
07-27-2012, 08:48 AM
Indeed they do and it is a better way of going about it.

Say I want a housing loan. To put it in simple terms, the bank would buy the house (or car etc..) and become the owner. I would then pay back the loan at an agreed amount per month plus pay rent to the bank (because they own the house) until the loan is paid back. It is better because you know exactly how much you are paying up to the last payment, and the bank is also sharing the risk in the transaction. Business transactions where the risk is one sided are also forbidden.

How is that better? I know exactly how much my monthly obligation is and the bank also has risk that I won't pay back the loan. So far a distinction without a difference.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
07-27-2012, 09:51 AM
I've always thought that dying was not a good ideal. Certainly made no plans to do it this year. Will wait until next year to decide on any decision making on plans for taking the long dirt nap!
Its just that we make plans and life gets in the way! It often does so by failing to continue as long as we would like it to.
Death and taxes both are assured and obama is in a race to use one to engineer the other methinks.
Taxed to death has been a part of history and has happened, taxed after death seems to be adding wicked insult to injury!-Tyr

fj1200
07-27-2012, 09:59 AM
Why does the government think they get over 50% of dead person's assets?

Just your great, benevolent government manipulating society to the great progressive ideals of our forefathers of course.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0606-36.pdf

Merely eliminating it and letting assets be subject to capital gains would be a huge improvement.

fj1200
07-27-2012, 10:03 AM
... obama is in a race...

Actually his Kenyan birth was decades after the estate tax was implemented.

Noir
07-27-2012, 10:05 AM
You might like to note that a death tax is illegal according to Sharia law. ;)

Inheritance is a God given right and no government should have the right to take a single cent of it.

While this is true, the Laws regarding property as detailed in to Koran (one of the few areas of the Koran i have a good knowledge of) are extremely outdated and sexist. Any modern, liberal legal society would do well to ignore such laws.

As regards the OP, 55% is insane =/

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
07-27-2012, 10:22 AM
Actually his Kenyan birth was decades after the estate tax was implemented.

Obvious that I was speaking of the other taxes he has had his hand in . You could attempt to enlighten yourself on the largest tax increase in human history, OFFKKUCARE. That the 0' so brilliant Justice Roberts saw fit to rule it as TAX, in case you missed it while being far too busy monitoring internet sites with your hopes of being appointed a authority figure on any crazy enough to curse their site with such a stupid action. :laugh:

By the way , why are you calling his Kenyan grandmother a liar with your sarcastic post concerning boywonder's Kenyan birth?
Your support of his lies betray you..-Tyr

fj1200
07-27-2012, 10:35 AM
Obvious...

By the way , why are you calling his Kenyan grandmother a liar with your sarcastic post concerning boywonder's Kenyan birth?
Strawman

Enlightenment from you is highly unlikely. You may be shocked at the thought that BO doesn't need to be brought up in every thread. Most here are able to separate all sorts of issues.

BTW, I think you answered your own question. ;)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
07-27-2012, 10:55 AM
Enlightenment from you is highly unlikely. You may be shocked at the thought that BO doesn't need to be brought up in every thread. Most here are able to separate all sorts of issues.

BTW, I think you answered your own question. ;)

You may be shocked to find out that I will bring up BO whenever I feel like it regardless of how it irks your little snotty arrogant BO LOVING ASS.-Tyr

fj1200
07-27-2012, 11:04 AM
You may be shocked to find out that I will bring up BO whenever I feel like it regardless of how it irks your little snotty arrogant Strawman #1.

OK, please point out which DP member who found your post to be new information. I must have a higher opinion of the others who post here.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
07-27-2012, 12:11 PM
OK, please point out which DP member who found your post to be new information. I must have a higher opinion of the others who post here.

Clearing you have the highest opinion of your magnificent self. So according to the great all wise you only new information is to be posted.
Good luck on that point of genius illumination on your part.
Still trying to give commands too. What a lying , arrogant azzhat loser.
Are you really a turd direct from ConHog's ass? You seem to match him in so many traits including the arrogance and perceived responsibility of being a mod here too.:laugh2:-Tyr

fj1200
07-27-2012, 12:36 PM
So according to the great all wise you only new information is to be posted.

Mindless repetition is the hallmark of Raymond Babbitt.