Posted on 09/23/2002 5:46:35 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
Two words - almost totally. Thru the use of trusts, holding companies, foundations, etc., it is possible to completely shelter from taxation a formidable amount of assets and income. In many cases, the complexities of this maneuvering are only worthwhile if there are considerable sums at stake - and then they become vital.
For instance, trusts can own real estate. Trusts can MANAGE real estate, and so can foundations. A foundation could, for instance, own (on paper) a huge mansion, and have in its articles that the owners of the foundations and their heirs may have full use of the mansion as a residence. As long as all of the i's are dotted and t's crossed, the foundation can provide for the "de facto" passage of the estate to as many heirs as desired. Of course, foundations must, by definition, make charitable contributions of about 5% of the assets of the foundation annually, so charitable giving is so channeled. To make sure the foundation never goes bust, the foundation (charitable, usually) must have income. That income is not taxable, so a wealthy individual can set up his compensation so that what he gets paid goes to the foundation.
I'm not a tax royer and have never played one on TV, but that's a simplistic explanation of how the system has been set up. There are plenty of other maneuvers, too - and the fat cats have cunningly made these avoidance plans available to all the top people in the media - all to keep them as willing accomplices. Which 'splains why the media are in FAVOR of tax increases - the hikes won't apply to THEM. When you read that a news anchor gets $7M a year, you probably think of a straight salary. Nope. No way. That 7M is sheltered 80 ways from Sunday against taxation - by the same cadre of royers who do Buffett's and everyone else's legal and tax work. You think Catie Colonic is paying taxes on her $15M income? Hah hah. I have some Arizona oceanfront property for you to look at.
Michael
For sure. I'd rather see wage taxes eliminated or severely cut back, wage taxes are far worse than estate taxes. You can't take it with you after all and let the heirs get busy getting to work for a paycheck, work is good for people.
If someone doesn't work for a living ---like many of the Kennedy's ---they get out of paying income taxes. People like that --especially the liberals in politics should be taxed somehow because they believe in having the middle class pay taxes.
Yes, My Mother did that with me and my 3 brothers a couple times. It includes each family member.
You can give $10,000.00 to each child, son or daughter in law, and each grandchild! That can be a lot of money each year!!
"Republican" extremists are Nazis.
That is one of the fundamental differences between us, you are an authoritarian. You believe in and advocate that force is used to achieve political ends. I do not. I also believe in property rights, you do not.
Bears repeating.
Why can't you give away all your money, if it is truly yours?
Your best answer ever.
This is considered a 'gift' and is totaly free of any tax. If you give more than that per year, the recepient pays tax on the excess, at least that's how I believe it to be.
It effectively conveys my boredom of "debating" an intransigent ideologue.
I've posted what I've had to say for the thoughtful consideration of others.
You can return to your routine of projecting false positions on the opinions of others for the purpose of applying derogatory labels.
I have better things to do.
The question is, is that how it should be?
Personal direct taxes are the way the government gains control over private property and wealth. Precisely why it was opposed, and forbidden, by the founders.
When shown for what your positions truly are, it is always a good stategy to disappear.
Boredom isn't your problem, daylight is.
No, absolutly not!! But we don't have much choice, do we? I was just responding to your other question.
While it's generally socialist to suggest that the rich have less "need" of their money than the poor, the Estate Tax generally his hardest those who need their money the most; while the super-rich generally have assets they can afford to take out of circulation for awhile (putting them in trusts, "foundations", etc.) and have ample cash to set aside for the taxes on the money they can't put aside, the tax falls hardest on those who don't have any spare money.
BTW, today's SS/Medicare/Medicaid system is set up to achieve the same effects on those slightly lower on the totem pole.
Yes, well it all boils down to what is probably the biggest, dirtiest, lie in all of American Politics: that the GOP is the party of the super-rich and big business. Unfortunately, the Democrats have successfully deceived the vast majority of the American populace into believing that. The truth is that both "big business" and the "super-rich" rely upon the Democrats to protect them from competition. Republicans are the party of startup businesses and social climbers. Businesses and people who have "made it" often support the Democrats, not because they want to help those below, but rather because they want to keep the "little people" in their place.
I wish there were some way to expose the Democrats' fundamental lie, since it would cause their façade to totally unravel.
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.