Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 2:53:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 17:44:49 GMT -5
hmm... The child didn't do anything to be entitled to it either.... And it is NOT that the US government is more deserving than the heir. Its that the passage of $$... ie. income... from one person to another has tax consequences... now there is allowence made for a very large deduction in this case.... quite generous... in addition, if you undergo the process of redistribution yourself... it is very likely that you will not have to pay any taxes... Not near the idea you seem to perpetuate that the government can't wait to grab every last penny from the cold hands of the dead... FYI... I don't want anyone's money 'for nothing' ... nor do i see this as money for nothing... you have that kind of legacy... 10 Million +... its cause you lived in one hell of a country that provided the system in which you were able to amass it....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 2:53:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 17:46:19 GMT -5
See... I think its the millionaires and billiionaires who are resisting a tax increase who are really the most entitled.... They deserve to have any thing their hearts desire... and live in a country where their travel is subsidized, their body and property are safe, and their water is clean.... yet they balk consistently at the idea that they might have to actually help pay for it...
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 10, 2011 18:58:43 GMT -5
Long term capital gain tax = 15%. Death tax = 35% . Not so generous. The IRS would also disagree that an inheritance is income...the interest, rent, etc that is later generated from that inheritance is rightfully considered income.
Irrelevant. The person that earned it should decide who should get their money; not the government.
That's just a ridiculous statement.
Some people here advocate stopping agriculture subsidies - they benefit the poor and middle class much more than the farmers. How do you think you get cheap milk or cheap vegetables?
I don't necessarily disagree with the subsidy being stopped but let's be honest about who it will hurt and who will be the first one to bitch when milk prices spike instantaneously by 10%.
Are you also prepared to pay more or maybe not have some items that aren't as profitable for the farmer? Just things to think about.
That's certainly inconsistent with your posts on these boards.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 2:53:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 19:06:05 GMT -5
I said the deduction of the first 5/10 million was generous. I know it isn't classified as once, but it is $ changing hands like income.... Just the heir didn't exchange anything for it.... ( labor, idea...). And if a wealthy person plans their own re- distribution, they don't have to pay...
Whose $$ did I say I wanted?
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 10, 2011 19:17:30 GMT -5
Here is some reality for oped.
Florida, (I think it was in Florida, but it may have been somewhere else), has a law that whenever a person dies they are considered as owning everything they have control of at the time of teir death that is not "clearly" labeled or titled to someone else.
Is there anything wrong with that?
So a drug loaded airplane crashes in the swamps and the pilot is killed. (This really happened). The drugs get valued at a couple of million dollars. His estate gets that value added to whatever else the pilot owned and the heirs get hit with the Florida, (or whatever state the pilot was from), inheeritance tax on the drugs.
Is there anything wrong with that?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 2:53:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 19:27:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand? The pilot's family was allowed to inherit the $$ from the drugs?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 10, 2011 19:28:32 GMT -5
Here is some reality for oped. Florida, (I think it was in Florida, but it may have been somewhere else), has a law that whenever a person dies they are considered as owning everything they have control of at the time of teir death that is not "clearly" labeled or titled to someone else. Is there anything wrong with that? So a drug loaded airplane crashes in the swamps and the pilot is killed. (This really happened). The drugs get valued at a couple of million dollars. His estate gets that value added to whatever else the pilot owned and the heirs get hit with the Florida, (or whatever state the pilot was from), inheeritance tax on the drugs. Is there anything wrong with that? Poetic justice to me.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 10, 2011 19:34:46 GMT -5
No, oped, the family was not allowed to collect any money for the illegal drugs. The drugs were confiscated and burned. The family was taxed by the state on the value of the drugs because they were considered as part of the dead pilot's estate when he was killed.
I believe there is more than one such case on record.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 2:53:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 19:47:01 GMT -5
I'd like to read more about it if you have a link. Despite my likening inheritance to income as a transfer, estate tax doesn't really work that way... The estate pays the tax... So I'm not sure how this exactly worked in the case stated? I'd love a link. Thanks.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 10, 2011 19:49:16 GMT -5
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 10, 2011 19:57:22 GMT -5
Your views on healthcare are just one example of your feeling of entitlement to OPM for nothing.
If we're not careful, the producers will leave this country because they're tired of supporting the non-producers.
It's never a good thing when it happens to a city and will be very ugly if it happens to an entire country.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 10, 2011 20:05:44 GMT -5
Exactly, expat. There are some voices beginning to come out of the wilderness that are finally being heard.
No one can bankrupt this country except the government. And if the government does not cut it's costs the country will go bankrupt.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 10, 2011 20:16:17 GMT -5
Spot on. The country rocketed to become the world leader in an extremely short amount of time due to it's unique position of allowing the producers to keep most of their production.
Now, certain politicians are telling the producers that they're not paying enough, despite subsidizing a lot of the population and should be paying more and to just shut up and put up with it.
In a global economy, it won't be long before the producers pack up and leave if that stance is the one that continues.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 10, 2011 20:22:53 GMT -5
...is already happening...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 20:28:03 GMT -5
Spot on. The country rocketed to become the world leader in an extremely short amount of time due to it's unique position of allowing the producers to keep most of their production. Now, certain politicians are telling the producers that they're not paying enough, despite subsidizing a lot of the population and should be paying more and to just shut up and put up with it. In a global economy, it won't be long before the producers pack up and leave if that stance is the one that continues. many of them will pack up and go anyway. the reason being that corporate profits are significantly less than 10% of revenues. if they have to pay 2% on revenues or 4% it is not going to matter if those profits continue to fall due to costs of doing business in the US. the only way they can maintain and increase profits is to take advantage of large, cheap labor pools like the kind they have in China and India. now, that is all the big corporations. you know- the ones that don't create most of the jobs here? and that is precisely why nobody should really be concerned about this debate: it is meaningless to the treasury it is meaningless to the worker they are just trying to extort us a little more before they pack their sissy bags and flee. our only real choice is whether we behave like men, or like sheep. NOTE: actually, that is not true. we could accept serf's wages here, and try to compete in that way. but only a truly insane person would advocate that.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 10, 2011 20:39:13 GMT -5
You might want to compare the tax line to the employee cost line of financials of US companies.
The US worker also still has the ability to produce much more than their counterparts across the world, making it beneficial to still employ them...when the government doesn't kill business.
In some cases, it just doesn't make sense for a company to make all of its products here in the US; namely when they're going to ship those items to China and India...why not support the local economy, make the products there that they sell there and save on transportation costs?
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 10, 2011 20:40:38 GMT -5
>>>>>> we could accept serf's wages here, and try to compete in that way. but only a truly insane person would advocate that <<<<<<<<
Why? Is it because the government would run out of money faster?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 20:46:12 GMT -5
You might want to compare the tax line to the employee cost line of financials of US companies. um....i just did that. the profit line for the average corporation shows less than 10% the COGS line, on the other hand, is well over 50% if a company can reduce it's COGS 20%, they double their profits. i could easily do that by moving to China. that is a good reason to go. but i am not the sort of cocksucker to sell out my workers and my family to double my profits.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 10, 2011 20:46:19 GMT -5
>>>>>>>why not support the local economy, make the products there that they sell there and save on transportation costs?<<<<<<<<<
Makes sense to me, and when you consider the costs opf making the products on top of the transportation costs, it makes sense in spades.
Some will argue that "they" could just let the recipient countries do their own investing in the production. I believe those people have not been paying attention. The fact is that MOST of what America once sold to other countries is now being made by those other countries. America is becoming irrevalent as a producer of the world's needs.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 20:47:19 GMT -5
>>>>>> we could accept serf's wages here, and try to compete in that way. but only a truly insane person would advocate that <<<<<<<< Why? Is it because the government would run out of money faster? most businesses don't last as long as the government. ;] then again, NO businesses have a printing press that literally makes money.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 10, 2011 20:55:54 GMT -5
I didn't know the employee was a cost of good sold. Good to know. However, I'd imagine your schedule C, part III might look a bit weird when you report your employees as inventory. Hopefully, you've got the appropriate accounting down for when you use one of those employee's for your own personal use.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 20:59:58 GMT -5
I didn't know the employee was a cost of good sold. Good to know. However, I'd imagine your schedule C, part III might look a bit weird when you report your employees as inventory. inventory is not a profit and loss item, it is a balance sheet item. the offsetting is COGS, so it actually goes as a negative to labor and materiels.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 21:01:47 GMT -5
Hopefully, you've got the appropriate accounting down for when you use one of those employee's for your own personal use. every dollar i earn is due to my employees. as an employer, i never forget that. i am blessed to have them, and i treat them very well. that is probably why my margins are so low, and my retention so good. ;] for the record, my labor and materials are both about 20% so, if i could cut my labor costs 50%, which i could do EASILY by moving to China, i would double my profits. but China sucks. it makes the US look like paradise.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 10, 2011 21:04:03 GMT -5
And that is what makes America, and more importantly, the capitalistic component of America far superior to the Democrat cradle to grave nanny system. Our companies move into areas and give the citizens of other countries the ability to climb out of poverty through their hard work and effort; building a good life for themselves and their descendants. It's a win / win situation. Sure, you get some sad stories about unfair treatment of employees, and that should be addressed but the overall model is a good one to lift people out of poverty. To the contrary, the UN has been f***ing up Africa for 30+ years. And let's not even talk about Oil for Food or the supported genocide by UNFPA.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 2:53:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 21:07:02 GMT -5
Instead of biting into profits, they could stop paying the CEO 50 million ...
You certainly mistake my desire for universal health care... See I Currently am on state programs cause there isn't a viable alternative for self employed people with pre- existing conditions. I want all people, except low I come kids to pay in, and to stop penalizing self employers people... I' m longing for the day I can pay our family premium again through an exchange...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 21:07:04 GMT -5
did you know that one TEXAS Corporation (a heavy campaign contributor to the president at the time) was responsible for over half of the funds siphoned through the OFF program? that is a fact that was not widely reported. they were tried and convicted on that, and the case was in appeals the last time i looked. BayOil is the name of the company. doncha just love being on the team with the white hat? ;]
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 10, 2011 21:08:28 GMT -5
If your labor is 20% and your material is 20%, then wouldn't your gross margin be 60%?
How would cutting your labor costs by half, or 10%, double your profits?
Further, if you've got to pay more than 20% in taxes, then how can you debate with me that it's not the employee costs that send companies overseas?
Further x 2, have you done an analysis of the increase or decrease of production by moving to China? Most companies realize that production per employee decreases in non-American employees. We may be expensive but we also work harder than just about any other citizen in the world. So, while you might be able to cut your labor costs in half, you might not get the same production - meaning you're not really getting a 50% savings.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 21:13:36 GMT -5
If your labor is 20% and your material is 20%, then wouldn't your gross margin be 60%? nope. shipping, commissions, and subcontracting total another 10%
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 21:15:02 GMT -5
How would cutting your labor costs by half, or 10%, double your profits? my overhead is about 40%, my net is 10% if i cut my labor cost in half, my COGS drops to 40%, and my overhead stays at 40%, which results in 20% profits (all things remaining the same).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2011 21:16:31 GMT -5
Further, if you've got to pay more than 20% in taxes, then how can you debate with me that it's not the employee costs that send companies overseas? because taxes are only charged on profits. 20% of 10% is 2%. even if taxes double, it doesn't even come close to the impact of halving my labor costs.
|
|