[ExI] The Dogs of Immortality

Kevin Freels kevinfreels at insightbb.com
Mon Jul 14 21:41:49 UTC 2008


> 
> Starting in 2007 in America only estates worth over $2,000,000 
> in value pay
> this estate tax.
> 
> In 2009 the amount goes up to $3,500,000!

So? Do you have a point? If I started saving $400 per month at 20 years old (with what is left AFTER I already paid my taxes!), by the time I am 65 that is worth over $2 million. That's well within the reach of nearly anyone who is disciplined. Why would you then want to punish this discipline by taking 45% of what's left of it when they die? It's absurd. Of course, the government wishes to encourage spending rather than saving which is why we're in the mess we're in now......
> 
> As it is today with proper estate planning only 2% of the 
> population have to
> worry about estate taxes coming out of their heirs inheritance.
Why does this matter? Just because someone is in a minority doesn't mean it's OK to steal from them. This is especially true when you consider their income has already been taxed once, twice, I mean three or more times. (Income, sales tax, corporate taxes, SSI, medicare, state, fuel, usage taxes and so on).
> 
> With proper estate planning a millionaire can gift much of their 
> estate($12,000 per year) to their heirs prior to death and not 
> incur as much
> estate taxes.
> 
No. But the heir now has to pay income taxes on it even though it has aleady been taxed as income. Besides, why should one have to go through such BS to give away the money they saved to their family? 

> Qualified personal residence trusts can be set up to leave their 
> mansions to
> their children without paying taxes.
Again, why so much BS to give away something that has already been paid for with post-tax money? This entire racket is there to support the estate industry, ie attorneys and financial planners. 
> 
> And all that's without even getting creative!
> 
> Someone really worried about seeing the government getting their 
> 45% could
> even leave the money to their dogs and specify that the money 
> could be spent
> by the dogs caregivers specified in the will, anyway that the 
> caregiversthinks would make the dogs happy. 
> 
> So if the dog wants a new 2 million dollar yacht the caregiver 
> can legally
> buy it for them in good conscience.
> 
(Insert my previous statement here)

What concerns me here is that you say "about seeing the government getting THEIR 45%" as if that money belongs to the government. That person paid their taxes already. They saved. I don't care how they initially made the money because that was taxed as income. The point is that they chose NOT TO SPEND IT. Had they spent it they would not be stuck with these extra taxes. That's the only thing different they did to cause that 45% tax to kick in and that's just nuts. 



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list