Estate-tax debate affects only very rich

Pioneer Press ^ | HANK SHAW

[Quilla]

Coincidentally, a coworker of mine called the IRS last Friday about this. He was told that the first million in tax free to the recipients.

[MortMan]

The role of government should be to stay the heck out of the way. Government has no business managing private property and/or business. To state otherwise is to endorse a socialist/communist tenet.

[Willie Green]

Government has no business managing private property and/or business.

Who said anthing about "managing", doofus?
It's more akin to keeping the pot stirred so the ingredients don't stratify, settle out and burn.

[KansasGirl]

Yes, that is correct. You get a lifetime gift and estate exemption of $1,000,000. Anything above and beyond the exemption amount is taxable to the estate. This amount is increased through 2010 until the entire estate is tax free. I however do believe that gifts given within the lifetime of the estate owner decrease the exemption that can be taken by the estate at the time of death (however any gift below 11,000 annually, 22,000 if married, is not taxable at the time it is given). It does however later reduce the total LIFETIME exemption amount. (Again, I am not positive that that is how the lifetime exemption is calculated).

I am a CPA, but tax and estate planning is not my specialty. Now I'm curious and am going to have to look into this!

There is even a Generation-Skipping Tax to prevent you from leaving you estate to your grandchildren instead of you children to avoid a generation of tax. For example, you are taxed when you leave your estate to your children and it is taxed again when your children leave it to your grandchildren. You can't just leave it to your grandchildren and avoid a layer of tax.

[KansasGirl]

Okay, after doing some research, I'll correct myself. Gifts given in the amount of $22,000 or less (for a married couple are tax free) and do not reduce the lifetime exemption amount. If a gift exceeds the $22,000, the amount in excess of the 22,000 reduces the lifetime exemption. No gift tax is paid at that time however.

[MortMan]

Doofus?

Sorry, but "stirring the pot" in the kitchen IS "managing" the recipe. When the government is telling someone "I'm sorry, but your father/mother earned that money, and you can't have it, despite what your father/mother wants", what else can you call it?

BTW - I'd prefer if you came up with some other name to call me - only my wife gets away with "doofus":-)

[Willie Green]

When the government is telling someone "I'm sorry, but your father/mother earned that money, and you can't have it, despite what your father/mother wants", what else can you call it?

So instead of reading and understanding Jefferson's words of wisdom on the issue, you choose to become just another zero-tax ideolouge. Fine. Hiding behind ideology is the refuge of a lazy mind, but I suppose everybody needs to relax their weary noggins on occasion.

BTW - I'd prefer if you came up with some other name to call me - only my wife gets away with "doofus":-)

Hey, honestly, it was just a lucky guess.
How am I supposed to know that I happen to agree with your wife on this issue?
I'll concede to her greater familiarity, experience and judgement on the matter.

[MortMan]

I didn't say a thing about zero-tax, friend. IMO, some form of "windfall" tax on fungible income that is transferred to inheritors is fine. But the death tax, as it exists now, is clearly punitive.

Inheriting land, especially a farm that is a family-owned enterprise, isn't really fungible - the value of the land is dependent on (1) long-term working of it to produce yearly income (which is also taxed) or (2) selling it. Using "market rates" to set the value of the transferred property ups the ante even further.

The same argument can be made for private corporations, including football teams. Money and stock in public corporations, on the other hand, are fungible.

Oh, yeah... I was attemtping to use a little humor to point out your ad hominem attack style, and to try and get you to stop. I see that's not going to be effective, so I'll be more direct: Your attack-laden style is offensive. I try to treat others with respect, and I expect them to do the same for me. To not do so, such as in this case, is childish. Clearly, you're more intelligent than that, but perhaps you would rather be offensive.

[Willie Green]

Oh, yeah... I was attemtping to use a little humor to point out your ad hominem attack style, and to try and get you to stop. I see that's not going to be effective, so I'll be more direct:

No need, I achieved my desired result: to extract a more thoughtful response on the topic. You're distinction between fungible and non-fungible assets is really quite good.

It's a shame you didn't see the humor in my retort regarding the pet name your wife calls you. That's OK. No personal offense was intended. As far as my "attack-laden style"... let's just say that I'm not shy about defending my position when I encounter responses like " So you want to turn America into a Bolshevik paradise because you hate the Rockefellers and Kennedys?" or "Invoking communism in the name of Jefferson."

It took a little teeth pulling, but I did manage to get a more thoughtful comment from you than the others. Thanks-you.

[MortMan]

Fair enough. Actually, the "agreeing with my wife" didn't bug me, but the assertion that I was being intellectually lazy did a little.

As far as the others, I don't countenance BS from any side.