Estate Taxes

#51
#51
Ashevolle said:
It's actually an estate law issue. The dead lose property rights when they die. If I die and say I want all my property to be buried with me in the groud, that won't fly. If it were a property rights issue, I could make that happen. But your property rights die with you.
Click to expand...

When does your right to decide the disposition of your property end?
 
#52
#52
Ashevolle said:
It's actually an estate law issue. The dead lose property rights when they die. If I die and say I want all my property to be buried with me in the groud, that won't fly. If it were a property rights issue, I could make that happen. But your property rights die with you.
Click to expand...
You need to find a commune ..... one way out in the middle of nowhere..... with no electricity or internet
 
#54
#54
Ashevolle said:
What if he has a wife? Do you think he can leave it to his son instead of his wife? You are mistaken if so. The laws spell all this out in black and white.
Click to expand...
Estate taxes don’t come into play until both husband and wife pass away
 
#55
#55
WBO said:
Actually the estate tax was the first national tax. It was promoted by Teddy Roosevelt as a device to break up the concentrated wealth and power of the old robber barons.

As for the poster who says the IRS could just say the estate is worth $500 million, actually no they can't. It's my understanding the Taxpayer Bill of Rights says that if the IRS assesses a tax without proof and the amount is determined to have been incorrect, the taxpayer can recover 20% of the unsubstantiated amount on top of having that assessment thrown out.

Currently the exemption amount is over $11.2 million per taxpayer so a married couple can pass over $22 million without any tax.

For all you guys who don't want any taxes, that's fine as long as you are comfortable with no police, no roads, no schools and no military. Start learning Mandarin.
Click to expand...
96FC79F9-16BF-4562-A3AC-1B7BBB44AA83.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens, StarRaider, NorthDallas40 and 3 others
#56
#56
Ashevolle said:
Theft against whom? You can't steal from the dead. If you mean to say that interfering with the testamentary wishes of the dead by taxing their estate, that's the law. Arguing that it's theft is inaccurate. You would have to be able to identify who owns the property for it to be theft and you need the state to make that decision according to the laws to even distribute that property accordingly.
Click to expand...

This is where you go off the rails. No, you don't need the state to decide who owns a property after death in most cases. Let's have the people, families decide. If there is confusion and probate needs to sort it out then I'm fine with the state charging a fee for that service but that's not what we're talking about here.

If I have a legal will that accurately states where my assets should go, why does probate or the feds get a share of it? Why do I need to play games like putting it into a trust in order to avoid this? That just makes other professionals money.

Wanna advance the conversation? Democrats have already discussed a wealth tax. In that case I don't even have to die and the feds can get my money. Anyone in favor of that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeadVol77, NorthDallas40, hog88 and 1 other person
#58
#58
hog88 said:
When does your right to decide the disposition of your property end?
Click to expand...
Your rights to decide the disposition of your property are conditional (you can do some things and not others). Your ability to exercise control over the things the law allows you to control must be done while alive, of sound mind, and as prescribed by law (i.e., you can't simply write a letter or record a video stating your wishes but must write a valid will or trust document with the requisite language and sufficient witnesses etc.).
 
#59
#59
Sea Ray said:
This is where you go off the rails. No, you don't need the state to decide who owns a property after death in most cases. Let's have the people, families decide. If there is confusion and probate needs to sort it out then I'm fine with the state charging a fee for that service but that's not what we're talking about here.

If I have a legal will that accurately states where my assets should go, why does probate or the feds get a share of it? Why do I need to play games like putting it into a trust in order to avoid this? That just makes other professionals money.

Wanna advance the conversation? Democrats have already discussed a wealth tax. In that case I don't even have to die and the feds can get my money. Anyone in favor of that?
Click to expand...
Typically, the state's decision is to leave it your spouse first, then your kids. The statutory scheme is as you would expect and is what 95% of people want. The laws are there to protect spouses and children.
 
#60
#60
Sea Ray said:
The decedent through a legal will
Click to expand...
So you need the laws and courts to decide who gets the new property rights. So the government is involved in that decision.

The operative word is legal (will). If you don't write a valid will then you dont get to decide as the decedent.
 
#62
#62
Ashevolle said:
Your rights to decide the disposition of your property are conditional (you can do some things and not others). Your ability to exercise control over the things the law allows you to control must be done while alive, of sound mind, and as prescribed by law (i.e., you can't simply write a letter or record a video stating your wishes but must write a valid will or trust document with the requisite language and sufficient witnesses etc.).
Click to expand...

What the hell do you think we are talking about? Of course if you do not have a will your estate will go into probate, that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about the .gov stealing a portion of your estate even with a fully legal LWAT.

****ing hate lawyers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeadVol77, Carl Pickens, NorthDallas40 and 4 others
#64
#64
hog88 said:
We have had to go through this so when my parents pass we won't have to sell the farm to pay the taxes.

Ash, ClearWater, guess who we paid to get everything worked out?
Click to expand...
I was going to say farmers get hosed by this. Not a whole lot of wealth there, but the government still sees the value and wants to tax the crap out of it.

If they hadnt been ready for it my family probably would have lost about 40% of the farm.

Another case of these redistribution barons having no idea how what they are pushing works in the real world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Y9 Vol
#66
#66
LouderVol said:
I was going to say farmers get hosed by this. Not a whole lot of wealth there, but the government still sees the value and wants to tax the crap out of it.

If they hadnt been ready for it my family probably would have lost about 40% of the farm.

Another case of these redistribution barons having no idea how what they are pushing works in the real world.
Click to expand...

These barons do. That even scarier. They know what they're doing. Its more scary.
 
#67
#67
LouderVol said:
I was going to say farmers get hosed by this. Not a whole lot of wealth there, but the government still sees the value and wants to tax the crap out of it.

If they hadnt been ready for it my family probably would have lost about 40% of the farm.

Another case of these redistribution barons having no idea how what they are pushing works in the real world.
Click to expand...

What happens is they come in and asses the value as if it were subdivided for development so if you have a few hundred acres in close proximity to a growing town you get hosed.
 
#68
#68
hog88 said:
What the hell do you think we are talking about? Of course if you do not have a will your estate will go into probate, that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about the .gov stealing a portion of your estate even with a fully legal LWAT.

****ing hate lawyers.
Click to expand...
You want to use the laws where it helps you and disregard the laws where it doesn't suit you. Without the government to arbitrate who gets the property, you would not be allowed to inherit from your parents. Rather the bank could keep the property. Estate taxes pay for the government to administer this vital role.
 
#69
#69
Ashevolle said:
Typically, the state's decision is to leave it your spouse first, then your kids. The statutory scheme is as you would expect and is what 95% of people want. The laws are there to protect spouses and children.
Click to expand...

You're drifting here. Let's use the example of Henry Ford. He wanted to leave his business to his family, in your words, spouses and children. There were no issues with them not receiving protection. But he saw that laws would take a great deal of his business away from them. So he comes up with this scheme of voting and non voting shares etc, etc. OK, so why did he and his accountants have to jump through those hoops? Why does the gov't think that they should get a portion of his business that he built from scratch?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, hog88 and Volgolfer1618
#70
#70
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Estate taxes generate relatively little revenue for the federal government. Taxes aren’t supposed to be created to punish wealthy citizens. That’s a problem with democracy. It only takes 50% plus one vote to persecute the minority.
Click to expand...

I believe karl marx said the same thing.
 
#71
#71
Ashevolle said:
You want to use the laws where it helps you and disregard the laws where it doesn't suit you. Without the government to arbitrate who gets the property, you would not be allowed to inherit from your parents. Rather the bank could keep the property. Estate taxes pay for the government to administer this vital role.
Click to expand...

You understand that earnings and money isnt supposed be taxed more than once. The estate tax is taxing money that has already been taxed, sometimes multiple times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and SpaceCoastVol
#72
#72
Ashevolle said:
So you need the laws and courts to decide who gets the new property rights. So the government is involved in that decision.

The operative word is legal (will). If you don't write a valid will then you dont get to decide as the decedent.
Click to expand...

If the Will isn't legal it can be taken to court and sorted out there. Unless that happens, the gov't should stay out of it
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, jaybird_1981, LouderVol and 1 other person
#73
#73
Sea Ray said:
You're drifting here. Let's use the example of Henry Ford. He wanted to leave his business to his family, in your words, spouses and children. There were no issues with them not receiving protection. But he saw that laws would take a great deal of his business away from them. So he comes up with this scheme of voting and non voting shares etc, etc. OK, so why did he and his accountants have to jump through those hoops? Why does the gov't think that they should get a portion of his business that he built from scratch?
Click to expand...

This is accurate.l
 
#74
#74
Ashevolle said:
You want to use the laws where it helps you and disregard the laws where it doesn't suit you. Without the government to arbitrate who gets the property, you would not be allowed to inherit from your parents. Rather the bank could keep the property. Estate taxes pay for the government to administer this vital role.
Click to expand...

Either you cannot read or cannot comprehend.

A person should not have to pay a lawyer to set up their estate so that their estate isn't consumed or broken up because of taxes. If my dad had a will drawn up all legal by a lawyer leaving the entire farm (land, equipment, cattle, everything) to my mother she would have to sell a good portion of it to pay the taxes.

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeadVol77, NorthDallas40, jaybird_1981 and 3 others
#75
#75
Ashevolle said:
You want to use the laws where it helps you and disregard the laws where it doesn't suit you. Without the government to arbitrate who gets the property, you would not be allowed to inherit from your parents. Rather the bank could keep the property. Estate taxes pay for the government to administer this vital role.
Click to expand...
If the government didnt allow something you wouldnt be allowed to do it. Jesus what a circular line of reasoning. How did we ever function without the government?

The only role the government should have here is if disputes are brought before them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeadVol77, NorthDallas40, jaybird_1981 and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top