I disagree with this sentiment entirely. First, you can't take it with you. So the tax really is on the person(s) acquiring money that they didn't earn, but is being given to him or her. Not on the party dying.
By the same logic, the state acquires money they did not earn either. It's simply taxation without representation, as the deceased's estate is taxed before being distributed to any beneficiaries.
I often worry about how this affects farmers and ranchers who are sometimes unable to pass on their property because of the of the state's insatiable desire to plunder.
Second, the estate tax dates back to the times of barons like the Rockefellers. The worry rightful so was hoarding such wealth in a particular family would be a threat to the american way of life. The more money you have, the easier it is to make more. Eventually in time, your family can acquire all the countries wealth. Essentially certain families could bypass government and control the american way of life, turning us all into slaves. Allowing a few families to acquire all the wealth is dangerous.
If only that kind of thinking was not frowned upon in today's USA. It would be a far better place to live for a very large percentage of its citizens.
The key words in your comment are "when you earned it." Estate taxes are not taxing the person who "earned" the money at all. Growing up in a well to do household gives one many advantages, at some point, people should have to earn some of their own money instead of ghoulishly living off the bones of their parents or grandparents...
BTW, there is an exemption for spouses...
The money was already taxed when it was earned. What's left belongs to the owner to do what they want, including leaving it to family or organizations when they die.
If you don't think the direct heirs of a wealthy person have claim to their parents' or their relatives' or supporters' money, then how could you think the government has a claim? What did the government and "the people" do to earn the money? ABSOLUTElY NOTHING. But they want to take it and spend it on themselves and their pet projects (much of which are incredibly wasteful and do no general good), rather than letting the people who created the wealth decide where it goes.
P.S. There's nothing "ghoulish" about living off of what your family left you. What's ghoulish is the government taking advantage of a person's passing to pad its pockets.
Actually, you mean socialism. Regardless, you act like all principles of socialism are bad. If so, you really don't mean that. For instance, I bet you enjoy the public roads, public education, and maybe even some things like public parks and libraries. The reality is taxes (the redistribution of wealth) benefit everybody. Without such redistribution most of us would be begging for crumbs like they do in places like Egypt without any hope for betterment.
Sure, you're right?socialism.
Taxes, especially when applied unequally, do not benefit everybody. Everyone has the same chance to use public roads, education, parks, etc. But, some pay beyond their fair share to support such things, good as they may be. There are better and more fair systems to emulate. No need to take something that has more often failed than not (e.g., socialism and communism) and apply it to the tax code of a capitalist system.
In a (Austrian-school-style) capitalist system, there's no need to beg for crumbs. One should have the opportunity to start one's own bakery. It takes a long time and effort, but there are never guarantees of success. I want you to have the same opportunity for possible success. Unfortunately, under no other system is this as easy. I do feel for the folks in Egypt; it's going to get A LOT worse in the coming years.
I'm guessing it will concern the estate tax, she is on the hook for quite a bit of cash. So wrong that you are charged to die, not like they didn't take their cut when you earned it and when you spent it.
I'm guessing it will concern the estate tax, she is on the hook for quite a bit of cash. So wrong that you are charged to die, not like they didn't take their cut when you earned it and when you spent it.
You're correct, but estate taxes are all about redistribution of wealth. That's communism and patently un-American.
Au contraire, quite American, at least once upon a time, when efforts were made to avoid repeating a European-style aristocratic class which had blood lines as its basis; not merit, not ingenuity, not hard work.
Also, if you prosper to such an extent as to mound up fantastic wealth in this country, nothing wrong with the government getting a cut. The country which provided an unequal amount of protection and stability for you during your lifetime.
Third, there are enough loopholes created by the wealthy to minimize the taxes. That is one of the reasons all the wealth was transferred to a trust not directly to people. Don't worry about Ms. Jobs she will be fine.
I guarantee Ms. Jobs is not there because of any Estate Tax announcements.
Correct, when Disney announced their directors up for re-election, no one from the Jobs camp was represented. However, it was noted that the 7% ownership is in the name of the Steven P. Jobs Trust, which my guess is a revocable living trust.
Laurene Powell Jobs can handle the fortune; she was at Merrill Lynch when she met Steve.
My guess is her presence at the State of the Union address will have more to do with some educational initiative that will be announced.
Actually, you mean socialism. Regardless, you act like all principles of socialism are bad. If so, you really don't mean that. For instance, I bet you enjoy the public roads, public education, and maybe even some things like public parks and libraries. The reality is taxes (the redistribution of wealth) benefit everybody. Without such redistribution most of us would be begging for crumbs like they do in places like Egypt without any hope for betterment.
Taxes, especially when applied unequally, do not benefit everybody. Everyone has the same chance to use public roads, education, parks, etc. But, some pay beyond their fair share to support such things, good as they may be. There are better and more fair systems to emulate. No need to take something that has more often failed than not (e.g., socialism and communism) and apply it to the tax code of a capitalist system.
In the Scandinavian Countries some people pay 50 - 60% income tax. Seems to work pretty well.
Au contraire, quite American, at least once upon a time, when efforts were made to avoid repeating a European-style aristocratic class which had blood lines as its basis; not merit, not ingenuity, not hard work.
Also, if you prosper to such an extent as to mound up fantastic wealth in this country, nothing wrong with the government getting a cut. The country which provided an unequal amount of protection and stability for you during your lifetime.
Very true. I can't understand why America doesn't teach, along with the salute to the flag, the poem written underneath the Statue of liberty (you know, big green thing in New York with pointy stuff on her head). America is the nation that would get everyone in and build wealth for ALL, by opposition to the Old World that only built wealth for barons, kings and clercs... and in the rare Republic, for some rich trading families very much akin to aristocracy (I'm looking at you, Stadthouder William of Orange, Dutch King of England...).
The President is likely going to reference Steve and mention Laurene in his speech tonight. That is my guess why she will be in attendance, a direct reference to Jobs speaking about his influence in technology, etc, and mentioning Laurene, who will be on camera during the televised speech.
I have a strong feeling about this.
EDIT: I just found out the details, more information here:
Though, the fact of quoting an Arab country, especially one that suffered from massive Israel terrorism (Israel has bombed public places like movie theaters in the fifties, and even nowadays you won't find a car driving at night with lights on in sniper range at the border... tells stuff, eh?) and then just-as-massive American interventionism (billions of US Aid poured into the Egyptian military to keep the status quo -- and peace with Israel -- ), might be discussed.
In other words, Russia, North Korea or Canada might be better exemples (uh, not Canada, sorry sorry sorry... I'm running before the Canadian Air Force bombs Hollywood )
Comments
I disagree with this sentiment entirely. First, you can't take it with you. So the tax really is on the person(s) acquiring money that they didn't earn, but is being given to him or her. Not on the party dying.
By the same logic, the state acquires money they did not earn either. It's simply taxation without representation, as the deceased's estate is taxed before being distributed to any beneficiaries.
I often worry about how this affects farmers and ranchers who are sometimes unable to pass on their property because of the of the state's insatiable desire to plunder.
I'm not even sure why this is newsworthy? Can we get updates when she uses the bathroom, goes for a walk or visits a target store?
You can get those tidbits of interest by following on Twitter at #getalife.
/
/
/
ghoulishly living off the bones of their parents or grandparents...
Jealous much?
Second, the estate tax dates back to the times of barons like the Rockefellers. The worry rightful so was hoarding such wealth in a particular family would be a threat to the american way of life. The more money you have, the easier it is to make more. Eventually in time, your family can acquire all the countries wealth. Essentially certain families could bypass government and control the american way of life, turning us all into slaves. Allowing a few families to acquire all the wealth is dangerous.
If only that kind of thinking was not frowned upon in today's USA. It would be a far better place to live for a very large percentage of its citizens.
The key words in your comment are "when you earned it." Estate taxes are not taxing the person who "earned" the money at all. Growing up in a well to do household gives one many advantages, at some point, people should have to earn some of their own money instead of ghoulishly living off the bones of their parents or grandparents...
BTW, there is an exemption for spouses...
The money was already taxed when it was earned. What's left belongs to the owner to do what they want, including leaving it to family or organizations when they die.
If you don't think the direct heirs of a wealthy person have claim to their parents' or their relatives' or supporters' money, then how could you think the government has a claim? What did the government and "the people" do to earn the money? ABSOLUTElY NOTHING. But they want to take it and spend it on themselves and their pet projects (much of which are incredibly wasteful and do no general good), rather than letting the people who created the wealth decide where it goes.
P.S. There's nothing "ghoulish" about living off of what your family left you. What's ghoulish is the government taking advantage of a person's passing to pad its pockets.
Actually, you mean socialism. Regardless, you act like all principles of socialism are bad. If so, you really don't mean that. For instance, I bet you enjoy the public roads, public education, and maybe even some things like public parks and libraries. The reality is taxes (the redistribution of wealth) benefit everybody. Without such redistribution most of us would be begging for crumbs like they do in places like Egypt without any hope for betterment.
Sure, you're right?socialism.
Taxes, especially when applied unequally, do not benefit everybody. Everyone has the same chance to use public roads, education, parks, etc. But, some pay beyond their fair share to support such things, good as they may be. There are better and more fair systems to emulate. No need to take something that has more often failed than not (e.g., socialism and communism) and apply it to the tax code of a capitalist system.
In a (Austrian-school-style) capitalist system, there's no need to beg for crumbs. One should have the opportunity to start one's own bakery. It takes a long time and effort, but there are never guarantees of success. I want you to have the same opportunity for possible success. Unfortunately, under no other system is this as easy. I do feel for the folks in Egypt; it's going to get A LOT worse in the coming years.
I'm guessing it will concern the estate tax, she is on the hook for quite a bit of cash. So wrong that you are charged to die, not like they didn't take their cut when you earned it and when you spent it.
I think Steve Job's family will be just fine.
I'm guessing it will concern the estate tax, she is on the hook for quite a bit of cash. So wrong that you are charged to die, not like they didn't take their cut when you earned it and when you spent it.
They were married, so this doesn't make sense.
It's 2012. "Steve Job's widow" is an individual with a name of her own, even in headlines.
Yes, but you know why AppleInsider writes headlines like that? They look better on Google News and other newsfeeds.
You're correct, but estate taxes are all about redistribution of wealth. That's communism and patently un-American.
Au contraire, quite American, at least once upon a time, when efforts were made to avoid repeating a European-style aristocratic class which had blood lines as its basis; not merit, not ingenuity, not hard work.
Also, if you prosper to such an extent as to mound up fantastic wealth in this country, nothing wrong with the government getting a cut. The country which provided an unequal amount of protection and stability for you during your lifetime.
Third, there are enough loopholes created by the wealthy to minimize the taxes. That is one of the reasons all the wealth was transferred to a trust not directly to people. Don't worry about Ms. Jobs she will be fine.
I guarantee Ms. Jobs is not there because of any Estate Tax announcements.
Correct, when Disney announced their directors up for re-election, no one from the Jobs camp was represented. However, it was noted that the 7% ownership is in the name of the Steven P. Jobs Trust, which my guess is a revocable living trust.
Laurene Powell Jobs can handle the fortune; she was at Merrill Lynch when she met Steve.
My guess is her presence at the State of the Union address will have more to do with some educational initiative that will be announced.
...would politicize Steve Jobs death. Disgusting...
Perhaps you didn't see the Republican debate the other night where Jobs, iPhones and Apple were a hot topic. ... oh right, that wasn't politics ...
Jealous much?
Nah, he just doesn't know what ghoulishly means. Hyark hyark hyark hyark.
*tends to his army of the Undead in order to conquer the Apple Spaceship*
Actually, you mean socialism. Regardless, you act like all principles of socialism are bad. If so, you really don't mean that. For instance, I bet you enjoy the public roads, public education, and maybe even some things like public parks and libraries. The reality is taxes (the redistribution of wealth) benefit everybody. Without such redistribution most of us would be begging for crumbs like they do in places like Egypt without any hope for betterment.
ditto, ditto, and furthermore... ditto
Sure, you're right?socialism.
Taxes, especially when applied unequally, do not benefit everybody. Everyone has the same chance to use public roads, education, parks, etc. But, some pay beyond their fair share to support such things, good as they may be. There are better and more fair systems to emulate. No need to take something that has more often failed than not (e.g., socialism and communism) and apply it to the tax code of a capitalist system.
In the Scandinavian Countries some people pay 50 - 60% income tax. Seems to work pretty well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/jo...-welfare-state
Au contraire, quite American, at least once upon a time, when efforts were made to avoid repeating a European-style aristocratic class which had blood lines as its basis; not merit, not ingenuity, not hard work.
Also, if you prosper to such an extent as to mound up fantastic wealth in this country, nothing wrong with the government getting a cut. The country which provided an unequal amount of protection and stability for you during your lifetime.
Very true. I can't understand why America doesn't teach, along with the salute to the flag, the poem written underneath the Statue of liberty (you know, big green thing in New York with pointy stuff on her head). America is the nation that would get everyone in and build wealth for ALL, by opposition to the Old World that only built wealth for barons, kings and clercs... and in the rare Republic, for some rich trading families very much akin to aristocracy (I'm looking at you, Stadthouder William of Orange, Dutch King of England...).
I have a strong feeling about this.
EDIT: I just found out the details, more information here:
http://9to5mac.com/2012/01/24/state-...-be-discussed/
ditto, ditto, and furthermore... ditto
Though, the fact of quoting an Arab country, especially one that suffered from massive Israel terrorism (Israel has bombed public places like movie theaters in the fifties, and even nowadays you won't find a car driving at night with lights on in sniper range at the border... tells stuff, eh?) and then just-as-massive American interventionism (billions of US Aid poured into the Egyptian military to keep the status quo -- and peace with Israel -- ), might be discussed.
In other words, Russia, North Korea or Canada might be better exemples (uh, not Canada, sorry sorry sorry... I'm running before the Canadian Air Force bombs Hollywood