1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Estate Tax....

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by XFBO, Apr 26, 2016.

  1. XFBO

    XFBO Well-Known Member

    So the wife had ET on during dinner when we heard Prince will be paying nearly half of his net-worth to 'The Man'......$120M.

    Obviously, I have nothing at stake nor will that tax affect even 1% of us but FVCK if that isn't thievery of the highest kind. It's not like the guy didn't pay taxes all along....this f'ing country is long overdue for a revolt.
     
  2. ton

    ton Arf!

    point: he's already paid taxes on it

    counterpoint: his heirs are the ones receiving it as income, they haven't paid taxes on the income.

    there ya have it, the entire argument.

    next...

    (btw, there is no estate tax on estates less than $5.4 Million per person, up from $650K in 2001)
     
  3. G 97

    G 97 Garth

    With out knowing the specifics, I heard he died with out a will. So I chalk some of this up to poor or no estate planning.
     
  4. SGVRider

    SGVRider Well-Known Member

    It's not really a strong counterpoint. Assuming he paid an average income tax rate of 25% when the money was earned (hard to say) and 50% when he died, that's an effective lifetime tax rate of 1-(0.75*0.5) = 0.625. 62.5 percent. The government didn't earn that much of the man's wealth. For everything he worked for to be stolen at that magnitude is unconscionable. The right to pass what we earn to our heirs is as fundamental a human right as freedom of speech or association.

    Obviously he had poor estate planning. However, that proves the point. I shouldn't have to spend millions on armies of lawyers and accountants to pass the fruits of a lifetime of work to my children.

    How any left wing piece of shit can defend stealing 63% of someone's wealth is unfathomable to me.
     
    MikeR and aedwards01 like this.
  5. Chango

    Chango Something clever!

    It's pretty easy to justify taking "someone else's" money to pay for everything.
     
  6. G 97

    G 97 Garth

    Well somebody has to pay for the all of the public sector employees who make more in retirement than while working. I meen they earned it. :crackup:
     
  7. 600k2

    600k2 Well-Known Member

    Dividends are the same way. Double taxes. :mad:
     
  8. ton

    ton Arf!

    Yeah, and the federal income tax is unconstitutional, so you don't have to pay it.

    Keep pushing that rope. Death and taxes...
     
  9. In Your Corner

    In Your Corner Dungeonesque Crab AI Version

    You are free to surrender on your own behalf, don't expect everyone else to join you.
     
    Britt likes this.
  10. Falcondrvr

    Falcondrvr Well-Known Member

    I could not agree more. This sorta happened to my family, but on a much less grand scale obviously. My mother in law passed away last year and had this POS annuity with about 50,000k in it. Due to little to no estate planning on the parents part, we ended up having to report this god damn annuity fully as income, so the idea that all inheritance is tax free up to 5.4 or whatever is total horseshit. We're all far from millionaires. FIL was a Korean war vet and lifelong car mechanic... MIL was a school lunch lady. Real silver spoon shit there.

    Liberals will defend anything that puts more money into the pocket of the god they worship, which is of course government.
     
    MikeR and Eskimo like this.
  11. R Acree

    R Acree Banned

    Rationalize, not justify.
     
  12. zx6rfool

    zx6rfool Stacks Wood

    Under the old retirement plan CSRS federal employees could earn 2% of their top 3 years for every year of service up to 65% based on more than 10 years and retiring after 62. So there is no way they are making more in retirement than they did while working. Under the new FERS, 1% of top 3 years, plus what ever they put in to their TSP (max 15% of paycheck, or 18K per year which ever is less) (Gov matches up to 4%). Neither situation would allow for someone to make more in retirement than while working.
     
  13. G 97

    G 97 Garth

    Possibly not Fed, but local and State certainly can and do. It's been very well documented. Just another general fleecing of the the taxpayers by the people who are hired to work for us but in reality only serve their own purpose.
     
  14. R Acree

    R Acree Banned

    I think it may well be overstated. I know I can't make anything near what my salary is when I retire.
     
  15. G 97

    G 97 Garth

    Exactly, even at 65%, it's still a fleece job.
     
  16. R Acree

    R Acree Banned

    BS. I put in 50 and 60 hour weeks every week just as I did in the private sector. The pay is no better and the benefits aren't either. The 50 or so percent I will get is an annuity. As soon as my primary beneficiary dies, the money is gone. Nothing goes to my daughter.

    I took the job so I would be able to stop traveling when my daughter was growing up. Are there some locations where folks are doing well? Yes, but not everywhere.
     
  17. zx6rfool

    zx6rfool Stacks Wood

    ^ Same, but the pay in the private sector is 15-20% + higher, and the 65% was under the old CSRS system which is gone. Only those hired before 1984 could get in on CSRS, and it required 33 years of service to get to that 65%. Plus federal employees hired before 1983 dont get Social Security.
     
  18. pickled egg

    pickled egg Tell me more

    Or contribute...
     
  19. R Acree

    R Acree Banned

    That was true for some of the older pension plans here. They were closed to new members in 1977. Those plans were very generous.
     
  20. XFBO

    XFBO Well-Known Member

    Cite, one location you KNOW, for a fact, where they collect a pension THEY never contributed to.....I'll wait.
     

Share This Page