Text 3189, 148 rader
Skriven 2006-07-04 12:10:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3662.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Charlie Edmondson to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * *
*
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <44a98575$1@news.cadence.com>
@REPLY: <cbb1$44a89333$18d64cf6$14290@KNOLOGY.NET>
Dennis (Icarus) wrote:

> "Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nirga2tp1p6kdmlte99skc72948qcg1ea8@4ax.com...
> 
>>On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 19:34:51 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>><ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ffjga295ri9tl9b9rqa2f8u09hv08r4s8u@4ax.com...
>>
>>>And as I said, the financial and insurance industry opposes repeal.
>>
>>So why not eliminate the loopholes and screw them? Seems to me a good
>>starting point would be eliminating the loopholes and taxing estates
>>over $3 million at the same rate as earned income.
> 
> 
> So you want to screw the rich kids, and screw the financial planners too.
> 
> Why exempt the first $3 million?
> 
> 
>>>So why not just make the minimum wage $100,000.00 a year?
>>>:-)
>>
>>That would be great from the point of view of trickle-down economics!
>>
>>But seriously, the way I look at it is that with a /per capita/ income
>>of something like $40,000 a year, we can afford to elevate working
>>people above the poverty line . . .
> 
> 
> So what is the minimum wage you'd like to see?
> $100,000 is apparently too much.
> 
> 
>>>>>If you inherit a company (a dry cleaner, a farm, a car dealership,
> 
> etc.)
> 
>>>>>you may still work your rear-end off because the business means
> 
> something
> 
>>>to
>>>
>>>>>you and you want to pass it on to your kids.  If the average person
>>>
>>>should
>>>
>>>>>have that right, the  rich should too.
>>>>
>>>>They do: no one is suggesting confiscatory taxation. And I don't see
>>>>how a comparison to the average person is valid here: the average
>>>>person gets taxed on the money he earns. Why should a rich heir not
>>>>get taxed on the money he gets but did nothing to earn? Apart from
>>>>clipping coupons, that is. I don't see even a hint of fairness here.
>>>
>>>Because gains in stock do not happen until they're sold.
>>>The gains in bonds do not happen until they're redeemed.
>>>Money in banks accrue interest, which is taxed.
>>>Dividends gained through stocks are taxed.
>>
>>Which is another problem: the working stiff pays money on what he
>>earns, while the rich guy has no liability until he cashes in. There
>>are economic arguments for that, but I don't think they're in play
>>right now.
> 
> 
> Actually, there are, because its not a gain (or loss) until sold.
> If I buy 100 shares of Google at $477 a share, and its currently 419 a
> share, I can't deduct the loss, right?
> If the next year its at 380 a share, do I get to deduct that loss as well?
> From 477 or 419?
> 
> If I buy 100 shares in a compay at 100, it goes up to 256, then I sell when
> its dropped to 50, do I poay taxes on the unrealied gain then deduct the
> realized loss?
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>And you know they don't work because.....?
>>>:-)
>>>If they were working in the family business, then they shoudl still be
>>>taxed, even though they have jobs?
>>
>>They're taxed on their salaries, aren't they?
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.
> 
> 
>>Inheritance is just income. I can understand, having grown up in a
>>family that owned a business, the desire to keep a business within the
>>family, but that doesn't change the fact that you're getting something
>>of worth.
> 
> 
> Not necessarily "just income" - transfer of ownership of assets.
> The cost basis for the inheritors is "stepped up" to the current market
> value. Apparently this was done to simplify bookkeeping - trying to track
> down the basis of decades-old property could be difficult.
> If the business was sold, then it'd become income - taxable based on the
> profit (or loss) of the sale value from the cost basis. At least thats my
> understanding.
> 
> Dennis
> 
> 
> .
> 

You know, I was wondering if the IRS watches Antique Roadshow?  Think 
about it...

You go on the show, and you have this odd painting that you inherited 
from your dad five years ago.  You remember it was in a crate in the 
attic (nobody liked it...) but it was bought by your great grandfather 
when he visited Paris after WWI, from a struggling artist on the street. 
  They look at the show, clean a little dirt from the corner, and find 
the name Picasso on it.  They then tell you its worth at least five 
million at auction.

Two days after the show airs, two treasury agents show up at your door. 
  They have a warrant to take the painting.  Seems that you didn't pay 
the estate tax on it, and you know owe eight million in taxes, interest 
and penalties...

And, what if it was somethink that you REALLY valued, like the antique 
bed your grandmother bore your father on, or similiar item, that is now 
found to be of great worth.

The estate tax stinks!

Charlie
                                                                               
         
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)