Best line of the night

Page 2 of 11  


But the person dies, not the corp. One of the reasons behind a corp is to last longer than the individual. Besides, this doesn't begin to talk about the main problem, that is traditionally has been used as a means to take away money when someone has more than the PTB think they should. I think an inheritance tax is fine as long as it taxes what is inherited at the same rate as it would have in a non-death situation. Inheriting stock, pay the cap gains like any other sale (although I would also be happy with no taxes, but no update in basis so we'd still get the some amount of money when sold... even if two more generations later)./
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:01:41 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"

It would help if these were complete sentences, but an estate is not a corporation. A corporation my be owned by (in) an estate. The corporation doesn't die at the death of its owner, it's passed on to his heirs, just as stock would be. Estate taxes are paid (by the estate) on the (greatly optimistic) value of the estate when that transfer occurs. Often there isn't enough money to pay the estate taxes and the corporation goes out of business (killing those jobs too).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

this is closer to what I meant
The corporation

corporations aren't passed on, the shares of the deceased are. All other shares are already owned by someone else, hopefully an heir
Estate taxes are paid (by the estate) on the (greatly

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:13:37 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"

You're splitting words. Corporations are owned by stockholders. Where there is only one stockholder it's irrelevant that there is stock (a legal necessity but irrelevant). Upon death, the corporation *is* passed from the deceased to his heirs. It does not die. The estate tax *is* paid when (before) that transaction occurs.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd assume that anyone smart enough to form a corporation to hold their estate would be smart enough to distribute the shares before becoming a statistic

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:26:20 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"

Then it gets taxed as income. Pay now or pay later. Either way the tax man gets his.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which is one reason why taxes won't solve the problem, even amongst the rich. You could tax the top 5% at 100% and still not cover the deficit, especially after SS surplus goes away in a year or two. Although one interesting thing is that most of the 50% (around 40%) of those who don't owe taxes actually have a negative tax rate because of the money the get back in things like earned imcome credit, etc.

of income taxes as they have %age of income (34,3% of taxes versus 16.8% of income. I find it hard to suggest that rich aren't paying their share when they pay 34% of taxes and 40% of the worst off actually have a NEGATIVE tax rate because the credits are more than their taxes.

Yep. Although I can guarantee that won't happen, especially state and local taxes since the CongressCritters from New York and other high-tax states would pitch a major bitch, as would the builders and mortgage types. BTW: Those in the top brackets already are finding out about that since deductions for taxes and charitable contributions already fade out above a certain income.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I agree that taxes won't solve the deficit problem by themselves, although they will have a major impact. "Loopholes" need to be closed and inefficient government rooted out. DAMHIKT - I retired rather than filling out those ridiculous forms (modified) again and again, taking those stupid tests and verifying that I know stuff.

If one's income is so low, it is totally eaten up by housing, food and other necessities (defined narrowly), why would you have to pay taxes too? Even the flat taxers would institute a no tax zone, so to speak. In order to protect their condition, the rich do have to pay a greater share.

Well, I consider myself relatively well-off, but I'm far from that point. And I have fairly little mortgage interest to pay.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which isn;t what I said. This wasn't a suggestion that the poor pay more taxes, just that it hard to suggest that the rich aren't already approaching it, especially given that the really poor are not only paying taxes, but are making a profit off it.

When I was still kinda sorta near the top 5% anyway, there was a couple of years where I paid an additional 5K in taxes solely and utterly because of phase outs.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The nation was more prosperous when in the Reagan years, capital gains were taxed at or near 28%. And I believe there was no "carried interest" then either.

Never got there and don't expect to get there ever either.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

down to 20% for cap gains. Actually we were fairly prosperous over most of the Bush years until the housing bubble.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Until the bubble burst, yes. I also remember the bubble in the early 80's that burst as the savings and loan scandal. But I best remember that I was able to put in the contract to buy my first home in early 1980 that the seller would reimburse me for the increase in interest I would have to pay if I had to get a mortgage at more than 12.5% interest. That's what I got, which was good because the broker wanted to wiggle out of that clause. He built a nice addition to his house next fall.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in

The money we've all paid in taxes to build the Interstate Highway System has also helped make the owners of companies like UPS and Fedex very wealthy. The ability to earn enormous amounts of money depends heavily on the infrastructure of the country. An efficient road system, waterways maintained by the Army Corp of Engineers, communications networks, the electrical grid, courts, police and even a military to protect overseas investments are essential to huge companies prospering in America.
The ready access to this stable and very lucrative market is extremely valuable to those with vast business empires. It helped the uber-rich to acquire and maintain their great wealth. Why shouldn't they pay for the bulk of it since they've received the bulk of the benefits? Political stability is something that's hard to "price out" until you look at Russia. There, you might be a energy titan until you express the wrong political views or even just make the wrong people jealous. Where the rule of law is weak, entrepreneurship is also weak.
The real issue is the division between the concepts of working for money and having money work for you. I laughed when I heard Laffer on PBS explaining how if the rich are taxed too much, they just "won't work" anymore. His words. I laughed because the real difference between the lower/middle class and the upper 10% is that the ultra-rich mostly don't WORK at all. They invest. That enables them to multiply their efforts in a way that a "salaryman" never could. I've known people to work three jobs, but there's an absolute limit to what a person can do with his own labor.
In the 2000's we saw first time American home-buyers competing with huge international cartels of investors. It has destabilized the country in ways we're only beginning to fully comprehend. Neighborhoods are falling into rot because it turns out it takes very few foreclosures to turn a good neighborhood into a bad one. The financial termites of Wall St. stripped an incredible amount of value from the equity so many people had built in their homes. It was people like Mitt and Bain Capital that have been responsible for some very bad changes in America. In 1980, 65 percent of recent high-school graduates working in the private sector had health benefits, but, by 2009, that was down to 29 percent. That's the work of buyout kings like Mitt.
There probably isn't a working person here in AHR that hasn't seen his wages or benefits cut in the last 20 years. That's NOT the direction a prospering nation should be headed. Mitt's enormous wealth in part comes from "helping" millions of Americans getting worse and worse deals from their employers. Fire workers? Your stock goes up! Cut their benefits? Your stock goes up! Lower their wages? Your stock goes up!
The only ray of hope is that given the continuously bad reception Mitt's getting from the Republican rank and file, Obama might well be a two-term president. With less time left than it takes to make a baby, Gingrich has shot his load and now Santorum is the new savior/flavor of the month. Eventually we'll see Ron Paul catapulted to the top of at least one primary as Republican voters cry out "Anyone but Mitt!" At least I agree with my Republican friends on THAT point.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:14:36 -0500, "Robert Green"

I agree, but you know what actually happens. UPS will raise their rates to cover it and that toaster you order from Amazon will have another $1 added for shipping. Corporations do not pay taxes, their customers do.

Hey, he worked hard to get that $100 million trust fund. That is, IMO, one of the biggest stumbling blocks to his winning the nomination. Joe Sixpack does not relate to him very well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Common sense is no longer common. Glad someone still has sense.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
I agree, but you know what actually happens. UPS will raise their rates to cover it and that toaster you order from Amazon will have another $1 added for shipping. Corporations do not pay taxes, their customers do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Does paying teachers(good or bad) more bring about any increase in kids passing or getting better grades? Does it better prepare kids for entering the real world of employment? No and no.
Fact is,the teachers knew the teaching salaries before they accepted the job,and probably before they selected teaching as a career. Perhaps they should only teach for a few years,and then move on to some better paying job(if they have the skills...),if they don't like their salaries.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

Yes, and yes. Better salaries for teachers brings better teachers into the teaching profession who otherwise go down other career paths that pay better.

What happens is that idealistic teachers come out of college, take teaching jobs and rapidly become disillusioned with the relatively low pay and the poor schools. The good ones generally leave for better jobs in the non teaching world in a few years, while the bad ones remain and get tenure and are protected by the unions. The end result is failing schools full of bad, tenured, union protected teachers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

that is what the teachers unions would like you to believe.

they get "disiiusioned" because of all the unprepared and unruly students that they MUST put up with. OTOH,private schools expel unruly and bad students.

that is what the teachers unions would like you to believe.

Fact is,all the billions we've poured into the Dept.Of Education has not improved the education of our kids at all.
Maybe we might be doing better by our children if we put that money back into local schools.(dumping the DOEdu)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:42:03 -0600, The Daring Dufas

I no longer hire anyone that has not graduated or have a GED. If they can't finish high school, they are not ready for the workplace. Everyone of those "disabled" people has turned out to be lazy, irresponsible, and unreliable. They don't make the 30 day trial period.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.