Posted on 02/23/2007 1:19:43 PM PST by PDR
In an interview for The New York Times Magazine this coming Sunday, financial guru and TV host Suze Orman gets on Deborah Solomon's case for not looking out for her own money, partly because "you are a woman." This inspires Solomon to ask Orman if she is married.
Orman says she "has a relationship with life," so Solomon presses her, and Suze then reveals that her "life partner" is Kathy Travis and, "We're going on seven years. I have never been with a man in my whole life. I'm still a 55-year-old virgin."
Orman says they'd like to get married, and both "have millions of dollars in our name. It's killing me that upon my death, K.T. is going to lose 50 percent of everything I have to estate taxes. Or vice versa."
Pressed again, she says that estimates that she is worth $25 million are "pretty close."
She says she has about a million dollars in the stock exchange, because if she loses it all "I don't personally care."
Why? I thought this forum was called Free Republic not the Rush Lust Forum. I didn't mean to insult you by making a joke about the object of your affection.
He's a big boy, he can take a ribbing. Rush doesn't need a complete nobody loser to defend him. Grow up and grow some why don't you. Gheesh!
If she were in a heterosexual marriage, would you have the same assessment of her financial situation? You seem to be envious of that, so I can't quite tell if all of your animosity is based on her sexuality, or if you're bitter about her doing so much better than you.
The bitterness sure comes through, though. :)
boy are you right on the money. Glad someone said it.
Apologies for hijacking the thread...
Thanks for sharing you story!
Suze is like a drug pusher with that Fico Score blitz!
Well she is disengenuos not being able to share her wealth she could form a corporation and put it in a trust.
There are certain trust that are tax free.....
Irrevocable Trust
A trust that can't be modified or terminated without the permission of the beneficiary. The grantor, having transferred assets into the trust, effectively removes all of his or her rights of ownership to the assets and the trust.
This is the opposite of a "revocable trust", which allows the grantor to modify the trust.
Investopedia Says: The main reason for setting up an irrevocable trust is for estate and tax considerations. The benefit of this type of trust for estate assets is that it removes all incidents of ownership, effectively removing the trust's assets from the grantor's taxable estate. The grantor is also relieved of the tax liability on the income generated by the assets. While the tax rules will vary between jurisdictions, in most cases, the grantor can't receive these benefits if he or she is the trustee of the trust.
The assets held in the trust can include, but are not limited to, a business, investment assets, cash and life insurance policies.
I am happy she is rich. I think its great.
If she is such a financial genious she should be able to figure away to get it to her girlfriend.
I am not bitter that she is rich. But I do hate to see a woman go to waste scarfing carpet.. But thats her decision.
If that attitude bothers you then I gues we will both have to live with it.
"I do hate to see a woman go to waste scarfing carpet."
And I do hate to see someone who does not know how to express himself without using crudity. You're right, we'll have to live with our differences. :)
(Not sure what you mean by "going to waste", unless you're one of those men who somehow thinks he's going to manage to have all the women out there, eventually!)
What's not true? The future IS uncertain.
As I said before, the traditional advice is to give all of your money away over time for a couple of reasons. (1) Gifts are tax exclusive and (2) the annual allowance.
However, because of the estate tax uncertainty, how does this now work in practice? Client A is wealthy and gives $10,000,000 of his money to a trust with his son as a beneficiary. He pays gift tax on the gift to the trust and after all is said and done, the trust winds up with $6.5 million, say.
Client B also has $10 million and wants to give it to his son. Client B does not form a trust and dies in 2010, when the estate tax is scheduled to be zero. Estate has no tax and the full $10 million passes to son.
Client C has $10 million. Does not form a trust, but dies in 2011. The estate tax is scheduled to revert to full scheduled in 2011, so client is taxed 55% and, adjusting for the unified credit, son winds up with $5 million.
But, of course, the President is pushing for a full repeal of the estate tax. So how do you plan when you don't know what the future will bring? It's been traditionally better to give, so what if you give your $10 million to your son--pay the gift tax--and then the next year, Congress permanently repeals the estate tax? You just cost your son a lot of money.
So tell me, Paulat, if the tools are well known, how do you plan? Tell me how to read the tea leaves. I'm curious.
After all, I am a nobody and a loser so I must bow to your superior thoughts and wisdom.
Now I must leave to "grow up and grow some" and pray I can be just like you.
I'll stand by my original comment.
Wow! You really nailed it (no pun intended)! She's got Ann's eyes and Tony's smile!
How do you know that she didn't earn her money the old fashion way? (Hint: By inheritance.)
If she knows anything about investments, then she knows enough to stay away from high commission, high cost life insurance and annuity products.
The problem is that you have to fund the trust, and that often raises gift tax issues.
Lets see now Linda: You assumed I was envious of her wealth.
Now you assume I wish to have all the women "out there".
I dont you know. I have been happily married for 44 years.
By going to waste I mean missing out on all the good things that men and women who are happily married can enjoy together. Children, family, enjoying each other sexually.
Now allow me to assume that you dont know a lot about these things. Perhaps because your own opinions are biased in favor of Lesbians.
You see we all sometimes make assumptions by reading these posts. My post was perhaps a bit crude as you say, I suppose I could have used different phraseology but it pretty much comes down to the same thing. An unnatural act when performed by members of the same sex.
Again your opinion may differ. I guess it depends on what people of the Homosexual persuasion consider natural.
I'm not biased one way or the other; to me, people choosing the lives that make them happy is all right. I have also been happily married (for 20 years, not 44), and for my husband and me, "children" were not on the list of things that would make us happy, so we eschewed the opportunity to reproduce. I don't think we can insist that happiness can be found in the same way by everyone.
I think a lesbian would probably not find that being married to a man made her happy.
DUmmie wealth envy, here?
There is no costs or fees for an LI products. Commissions are paid by the LI company on top of bonuses to the purchaser. Since the LI company pays the bonus and commission and there is guaranteed principle, where exactly is this high cost?
Please understand a product before you attempt to malign it.
That's a MAN, baby!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.