oh well, that one article clearly proves it

11/1/2008 7:45:28 PM

Quote :

"how many JP Morgans or Rothschilds have been created from absolutely nothing? I can't think of very many."

1. Gates, William H III
2. Buffett, Warren Edward
3. Allen, Paul Gardner
4. Walton, Helen R
5. Walton, S Robson
6. Walton, John T
7. Walton, Jim C
8. Walton, Alice L
9. Ellison, Lawrence Joseph
10. Ballmer, Steven Anthony

http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/13/rich400land.html

Thats because you lack any ability to do minimal amount of research.

[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 7:45 PM. Reason : an individual in the top 10 is worth more then Standard Oil ever was. btw.]

posting this again for new page.

11/1/2008 7:46:34 PM

Yes, you pointed out a few, but all of those pale in comparison to the influence and power of the afore-mentioned barons. How much influence does Gates really have? How about Buffett? Now, let's talk about what Morgan had, or what the Rothschilds have.

Again, it should come as no surprise that we have so few people made in the time since the tax was instituted, and that was its primary purpose.

Quote :

"an individual in the top 10 is worth more then Standard Oil ever was. btw."

haha. wow, way to compare 2008 dollars to 1920 dollars.

[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 7:53 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2008 7:52:59 PM

I'm not arguing with you about the influence and power of the wealthy at the turn of the century vs what they have now.

In fact, that has nothing to do with this argument and is another strawman by you for the sake of continuing what is essentially a finished argument.

American's are far wealthier today then they were 100 years ago and thats with the estate tax and that utterly destroys your theory that the estate tax will prevent people from becoming wealthy.

Done.

Next.

11/1/2008 7:55:19 PM

Quote :

"It's easy to have a business that on paper is worth in excess of several million dollars. Few businesses at that size, though, have the monetary assets to pay off 16% of their value. You know this"

Where is your evidence for this?

Typically a business doesn't become worth 5 million dollars without incorporating, in which case estate tax becomes irrelevant.

If someone is running a small business worth $5 million, this represents an extremely tiny amount of small businesses (considering that 98% of small businesses gross less than $250k/year).

And if someone is running a small business that actually IS worth $5 million, and they're the sole owner, but they don't have the money to pay the tax, there are in fact deductions for this scenario. But it's ridiculous to throw the baby out with the bathwater for a 1 in a million situation,.

11/1/2008 7:57:05 PM

and, as I have ALREADY MENTIONED, there is far more working in favour of American wealth in the past century than the estate tax has worked against it, namely the complete and utter destruction of Europe, dipshit.

Quote :

"Typically a business doesn't become worth 5 million dollars without incorporating, in which case estate tax becomes irrelevant."

speaking of evidence...

Quote :

"If someone is running a small business worth $5 million, this represents an extremely tiny amount of small businesses (considering that 98% of small businesses gross less than $250k/year)."

Really? Explain why I consult for a business with less than 20 employees that grosses more than 2mil a year easily, all while selling a product that is worth next to nothing. I find it hard to believe that so many small businesses aren't making money when this business is selling fucking SALT and making a killing.

Quote :

"And if someone is running a small business that actually IS worth $5 million, and they're the sole owner, but they don't have the money to pay the tax, there are in fact deductions for this scenario."

Do such reductions completely and totally prevent the need to sell the business? I don't think so. We've already seen that most businesses operate with a dearth of cash, as evidenced by the recent credit crunch. It seems asinine to assert that such a business could garner the cash needed to pay off even 6% of its assets without completely annihilating the business at the same time.

[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 8:03 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2008 7:57:56 PM

Yea ad hominem, that works well for you.

Adjusted for inflation, Rockefeller's net worth was $318 Billion dollars making him the wealthiest man ever to have lived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller

11/1/2008 8:00:43 PM

yes, bringing up a point I already destroyed works well for you, too, doesn't it. Thus the reason I called you a dipshit, dipshit

V wouldn't that be why it is "adjusted for inflation?"

[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 8:12 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2008 8:04:31 PM

^^ wait, that implies his worth was 2x the US GDP... that doesn't seem right...

11/1/2008 8:05:50 PM

Quote :

"Do such reductions completely and totally prevent the need to sell the business? "

The tax is not designed to cause the business to be sold in the first place, so this question is like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Quote :

"I don't think so. We've already seen that most businesses operate with a dearth of cash, as evidenced by the recent credit crunch. It seems asinine to assert that such a business could garner the cash needed to pay off even 6% of its assets without completely annihilating the business at the same time."

The credit crunch doesn't show this at all, how did you conclude that? These businesses weren't operating at a dearth of cash, they were spending their cash on an essentially bogus product. If you have a million dollars on disposable income, and I tell you I have a genie lamp that will double that, and you buy my lamp, that doesn't count as you operating on a deficit, it counts as you being idiot for investing in a genie lamp.

Quote :

"Quote : "If someone is running a small business worth $5 million, this represents an extremely tiny amount of small businesses (considering that 98% of small businesses gross less than $250k/year)." Really? Explain why I consult for a business with less than 20 employees that grosses more than 2mil a year easily, all while selling a product that is worth next to nothing. I find it hard to believe that so many small businesses aren't making money when this business is selling fucking SALT and making a killing. "

I don't understand your point here. My 98% number is based on actual figures, it's irrelevant you happen to work for the 2 percent. And if they are "making a killing" and are actually owned by a single owner, and are not incorporated, then it sounds to me they can pay a 12% tax.

11/1/2008 8:13:34 PM

doesn't matter if it's "not designed to do something" if it does it anyway, does it?

Quote :

"The credit crunch doesn't show this at all, how did you conclude that? These businesses weren't operating at a dearth of cash, they were spending their cash on an essentially bogus product. If you have a million dollars on disposable income, and I tell you I have a genie lamp that will double that, and you buy my lamp, that doesn't count as you operating on a deficit, it counts as you being idiot for investing in a genie lamp."

You must be thinking of something completely different. The credit crunch of which I am speaking is the one that allegedly caused business not to have the operating cash to pay their workers because they couldn't secure short-term loans.

Quote :

"I don't understand your point here. My 98% number is based on actual figures, it's irrelevant you happen to work for the 2 percent."

And my point is that I question the validity of those figures if a business with such a low-margin and low-cost product can gross 1mil with less than 20 employees.

11/1/2008 8:17:00 PM

Quote :

"doesn't matter if it's "not designed to do something" if it does it anyway, does it? "

The point was that it DOESN'T actually do this, not from anything I can find. And you haven't proven that it does either.

Quote :

"And my point is that I question the validity of those figures if a business with such a low-margin and low-cost product can gross 1mil with less than 20 employees."

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=546642&page=1#12235163

11/1/2008 8:19:18 PM

you post my post because...

Quote :

"The point was that it DOESN'T actually do this, not from anything I can find."

Well, then maybe you should have said so, because that is NOT what you said.

[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 8:22 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2008 8:21:56 PM

Ahahaha aaronburro taken out to the woodshed in this thread.

11/1/2008 8:39:29 PM

Quote :

"This is a plausible scenario, but you'd have to know more about how many generations on average wealth lasts."

About 3:

Quote :

" six out of 10 affluent families will lose the family fortune by the end of the second generation, Zeeb says. And nine out of 10 will have depleted the family wealth by the end of the third generation."

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Retirementandwills/Planyourestate/P147046.asp

11/1/2008 10:29:12 PM

^^ I sure am glad you supported that with anything. How about this: AHAHAHAHA, Str8tFoolish proven to be a pedophile in this thread!!! AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

11/2/2008 12:05:11 AM

lol

I think burro is becoming the new hooksaw

11/2/2008 12:09:10 AM

HOLY FUCKING SHIT SOAP BOX GOD DAMMIT

oh wait, damnit

11/2/2008 12:27:37 AM

Quote :

"If I remember correctly, you can be claimed as a dependent for several years after turning 18. That gives you a pretty sizeable transition period in which you can continue to leech while establishing yourself independently."

I was thinking of ethics, not the tax code. Boone ascribes moral inferiority to being financially supported by parents. Americans should make it on their own and all that. If it's fine for kids to be dependent, when and why does this change?

11/2/2008 12:36:00 AM

can someone explain to me exactly why you would favor an inheritance tax? (other than jealously)

11/2/2008 12:41:23 AM

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States#Arguments_in_favor

Quote :

"Two of the world's wealthiest men, Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, and the father of founder of Microsoft Bill Gates, William H. Gates, Sr., favor the estate tax.[3] "

They are really the jealous type I imagine.

[Edited on November 2, 2008 at 12:47 AM. Reason : ]

11/2/2008 12:46:51 AM

so you favor this because two other people who are wealthy do?

Or you want to punish people who have more money than you do moron?

11/2/2008 12:51:11 AM

Umm... did you click the link?

It has nothing to do with "punishment" just as taxes in general don't have anything to do with "punishment."

I can understand burro choosing ignorance, but you often pretend to hold yourself to a higher standard; I would expect more from you beyond mindless banality.

11/2/2008 12:58:45 AM

I guess my question to you moron is, if support the idea of an inheritance tax, why not have everyones inheritance taxed?

11/2/2008 1:01:10 AM

the soapbox has sunk to a new low

congrats Boone

11/2/2008 1:02:57 AM

^^ the answer to that question was answered on page 1 of this thread.

11/2/2008 1:04:51 AM

I reread your post, I dont see how that answers my question to you. (outside of jealousy)

btw, this doesnt really affect me, but I just find it to be wrong.

11/2/2008 1:09:40 AM

^ burro answered it implicitly in this post and subsequent posts: http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=546642&page=1#12235122

11/2/2008 1:11:24 AM

so YOU dont have an answer? All you keep giving me is other peoples opinion.


anyway, you have a good night moron.

11/2/2008 1:13:52 AM

^ the issue has been discussed between me and burro in the thread, there's no reason for me to rehash our discussion with you, when it exists already.

I've already had to hold burros hand in learning about this, i figured you could handle things on your own.

But it's obvious your opinion is not based on any actual facts, but purely emotion and delusion. You might find this exchange relevant too: http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=546642&page=1#12235163

11/2/2008 1:18:34 AM

I love how quickly some people jump on "jealousy" with regards to supporters of the estate tax. How does that make any sense? We're not trying to tax inherited money to keep the proceeds for ourselves. And it's not as though the estate tax is adequate to "bring you down to our level." So by what possible definition of "jealousy" can it be applied here?

The simple truth is that the main reasoning behind the estate tax is the same as the reasoning behind any other tax: Government does things that cost money, which has to come from somewhere.

Though it is secondary, I will admit to a fairly important element of social engineering, as described earlier. I think most proponents of the estate tax support it because they agree with the idea that targeting that specific kind of wealth transfer benefits the vast majority while only harming a few (and some of us might debate that it doesn't harm anybody, since the people who made the money are dead and no longer relevant, and because the person receiving the wealth they didn't earn isn't actually being harmed).

eyedrb's presence here strikes me as doubly amusing, since he's the one that rants so hard against "entitlements" but defends tax-free inheritance, which is the mother of all entitlements. "I'm entitled to this money not because I earned it, and not because I need it; I'm entitled because, either through random chance or engineered acquaintance, I had a relationship with the person who did earn it."

11/2/2008 1:35:52 AM

if i earned 2 million dollars and gave you 100,000 of it as a gift, should you have to pay taxes on it?


why does the government think they should be able to tax the same money twice?

11/2/2008 2:37:51 AM

Virtually all of the money in circulation has already been taxed at least once - so, if you believe money should only be taxed once then the government will never collect another dime of tax money outside of new printing.

11/2/2008 8:52:11 AM

Is no one interested in explaining to my why an estate tax is preferrable to a wealth tax?

The super rich that live long enough to let their tax attorneys in on the scheme manage to pay almost nothing towards the estate tax, leaving payment of the tax almost entirely upon those that either died unexpectedly or did not realize they should hire an attorney.

A wealth tax should get around this problem because a trust would be taxed as all wealth is taxed, not just because it died (which it cannot). It would also eliminate the sudden need for a family owned business to raise money for taxes because it has paid its share of the tax all along and the owners will continue to do so.

11/2/2008 9:33:37 AM

Quote :

"if i earned 2 million dollars and gave you 100,000 of it as a gift, should you have to pay taxes on it? why does the government think they should be able to tax the same money twice? "

What differentiates a gift from a salary? The reason gifts are taxed like this is to prevent people from paying their employees as "gifts" to get around having to pay taxes. Among other reasons.

11/2/2008 9:51:48 AM

Quote :

"my dad has been retired, somebody lock this stupid fucking thread and suspend Boone"

why am i not surprised that TreeTwista10 has been handed everything on a silver platter?

Quote :

"Hypocrites cry so hard when they get exposed."

aha

11/2/2008 9:54:29 AM

Quote :

"I was thinking of ethics, not the tax code. Boone ascribes moral inferiority to being financially supported by parents. Americans should make it on their own and all that. If it's fine for kids to be dependent, when and why does this change?"

I was more interested in the ethics aspect, as well.

I don't think that inherited wealth is inherently ethically wrong. I do think it requires is a measure of humility in proportion to your inheritance, though.

For instance, my parents helped me out quite a bit with paying for college. So I naturally don't rail against people who claim they can't afford college. I don't personally know how difficult it actually is to pay your way through college without any aid, so I'd be an ass if I judged people in that situation.

All the anti-poor hate being spouted by the Daddy's boys in the tax threads prompted me to make this thread.

11/2/2008 11:02:01 AM

Quote :

"While I certainly believe that our government has no right to deny inheritance, I think there's plenty of moral justification for maintaining a significant estate tax."

I don't think there's any moral justification in taking money from people who earned it and want to give it to their children.

People who earned more money than they can spend should be able to do whatever they please with it.

What's the point of being extremely successful if you can't help make your child's life easier?

11/2/2008 11:26:21 AM

Quote :

"I don't think there's any moral justification in taking money from people who earned it and want to give it to their children. pay their employees"

Quote :

"I don't think there's any moral justification in taking money from people who earned it and want to give it to their children. buy Ferraris"

See where I'm going here? Income's income and spending's spending. Why should giving money to your kids be different from giving it to your employees? Imagine the loopholes you'd create.

11/2/2008 12:03:36 PM

Quote :

""I don't think there's any moral justification in taking money from people who earned it and want to give it to their children. pay their employees""

To be fair, up until the 16th amendment, there was no legal justification either.

That being said, if you want to tax money passed on to heirs, tax it as income, but things like real property are already taxed annually, there's no need to tax it again just because the current owner dies.

Values of businesses are another matter, but again here I think since the businesses are taxed anyway, there's no need to add an additional tax just because owners change hands.

Stock and securities are already taxed, again just tax them as normal. There really doesn't seem to be a good reason to add additional taxes to things just because the owner dies.

11/2/2008 12:17:53 PM

oh, of course there is. didn't you know that the wealthy people gained all of that by doing shady dealings? durr!

11/2/2008 3:19:46 PM

Quote :

"eyedrb's presence here strikes me as doubly amusing, since he's the one that rants so hard against "entitlements" but defends tax-free inheritance, which is the mother of all entitlements. "I'm entitled to this money not because I earned it, and not because I need it; I'm entitled because, either through random chance or engineered acquaintance, I had a relationship with the person who did earn it." "

GTFO with that bullshit. If you cant see the difference between the two then i cant help you. The fact that someone chooses to what to do with whatever money they have at the time of thier death isnt any concern of the govt. If you really feel that it is, I wonder how many of you claim the cash you receive at christmas.

You arent entitled to someone else money dipshit. Now if someone who has the money CHOOSES to give it to you, then so be it. See the fucking difference?

11/2/2008 4:05:49 PM

govt = charity ?

11/2/2008 5:31:02 PM

Inheritance Tax is nothing but big government sticking its greedy paws where they don't belong. If you bust your ass all your life part of the reward and satisfaction of that is making things better/easier for your family/children (if you so choose of course). That's income you earned and were already taxed for. Its in your family, the government has no right to tax it AGAIN.

And for the record I haven't received any inheritance from relatives. However one of my grandparents has been giving away cash every year at the tax limit to reduce her estate and I am a recipient of that.

11/2/2008 5:33:17 PM

dead people can vote, why not tax them?

11/2/2008 6:06:18 PM

Quote :

"If you really feel that it is, I wonder how many of you claim the cash you receive at christmas."

Uhh... gift tax doesn't phase in until around $11,000. I actually don't know a single person who's received such a gift on Christmas. If they did, it's actually up to the donor to pay the tax, otherwise it'd be tax evasion.

11/2/2008 7:41:54 PM

and you think that is ok moron? I would imagine you would, since, again, it doesnt affect YOU.

11/2/2008 8:08:02 PM

The point is that you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

It's fine for you to have the opinion you have, but your view is not reasonable considering reality.

You can't have ANY taxation without having a gift tax, because people will just claim all transfers of money are gifts. Surely you realize this?

11/2/2008 8:19:29 PM

Quote :

"You can't have ANY taxation without having a gift tax"

Well, You can't have ANY income taxation without having a gift tax.

Which is exactly what flat taxers want.

11/2/2008 8:24:16 PM

^ flat tax is on income, and would require a gift tax still.

11/2/2008 8:30:56 PM