Ruling poses tax issues for same-sex couples

  • metta

    Posts: 39112

    Jul 11, 2012 12:16 AM GMT
    Ruling poses tax issues for same-sex couples

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ruling-poses-tax-issues-for-same-sex-couples-2012-07-10?siteid=nwhpf
  • dantoujours

    Posts: 378

    Jul 11, 2012 10:14 AM GMT
    JackBlair69 saidAll of a sudden white Liberals are against the estate tax? Welcome home, biotches.


    Who's against it? I think Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin were right and estate taxes should by close to 100% to stop the creation of an European-style aristocracy in the U.S., who can then subvert democracy and destroy the meritocracy. (Oops! Too late.) But same sex couples should recognized by the Federal government and be treated the same as opposite sex couples.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 10:22 AM GMT
    dantoujours said
    JackBlair69 saidAll of a sudden white Liberals are against the estate tax? Welcome home, biotches.


    Who's against it? I think Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin were right and estate taxes should by close to 100% to stop the creation of an European-style aristocracy in the U.S., who can then subvert democracy and destroy the meritocracy. (Oops! Too late.) But same sex couples should recognized by the Federal government and be treated the same as opposite sex couples.

    Being in favor of 100% estate taxes goes against a principle held for many years, specifically a goal for one generation to make things better for the next. But with the left's principle of "social justice", that doesn't cut it anymore.
  • dantoujours

    Posts: 378

    Jul 11, 2012 10:28 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    dantoujours said
    JackBlair69 saidAll of a sudden white Liberals are against the estate tax? Welcome home, biotches.


    Who's against it? I think Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin were right and estate taxes should by close to 100% to stop the creation of an European-style aristocracy in the U.S., who can then subvert democracy and destroy the meritocracy. (Oops! Too late.) But same sex couples should recognized by the Federal government and be treated the same as opposite sex couples.

    Being in favor of 100% estate taxes goes against a principle held for many years, specifically a goal for one generation to make things better for the next. But with the left's principle of "social justice", that doesn't cut it anymore.


    Not at all. Even with the a 100% estate tax the money doesn't disappear into thin air. It helps the entire next generation through better education, infrastructure, research and development, etc., not just a privileged few.

    And it is hardly a leftist principle. It was one of the founding values of the Republic. All of the founding fathers were for estate taxes:

    The fight against aristocracy goes back to the nation's founding and is part of our democratic tradition. Nobody feared aristocracies more than Thomas Jefferson. In Jefferson's day, aristocracies were far-reaching. European nations had powerful nobles who inherited their status, promoted their own self-interested politics and often considered their interests to be superior to those of the majority. They demanded legal privileges unavailable to others. In contrast, Jefferson hoped to create a society in which all citizens were considered equal.

    Americans today agree that hard work ought to be rewarded, but inheritance of great wealth and power works against this core American value. Jefferson hoped to replace a permanent aristocracy with what he called a "natural aristocracy" of talent and virtue, but he recognized this meant giving the children of each generation an equal start.

    Jefferson argued that the best way to prevent an aristocracy was to limit inheritance. In a 1789 letter to his friend James Madison, Jefferson wrote that "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living" and "the dead have neither powers nor rights over it" -- that is, the dead should not control the opportunities of the next generation. Every child deserves a fair chance.

    The estate tax's critics claim that it violates property rights, but how can the dead have a right to property? The right to property emerges from labor, the nation's founders believed. With death, that right returns to society. "The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society," Jefferson told Madison. It is up to citizens to determine what and how much children inherit from their parents.


    History News Network


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 11:51 AM GMT
    dantoujours saidNot at all. Even with the a 100% estate tax the money doesn't disappear into thin air. It helps the entire next generation through better education, infrastructure, research and development, etc., not just a privileged few.

    And it is hardly a leftist principle. It was one of the founding values of the Republic. All of the founding fathers were for estate taxes:

    The historical context pertained to the extremely wealthy. The impact of inheritance taxes today impedes a small business owner or farmer from leaving the fruits of his labor to the next generation. Deny it all you want, but that is very much an attitude of today's left.
  • 6packabs

    Posts: 216

    Jul 11, 2012 11:58 AM GMT
    Damn the hypocrites who are for estate taxes, and the inheritance taxes, like Bill Gates Senior. They want to impose those taxes on the rest of us, but they themselves are exempt in their high-end tax-exempt foundations.

    Anyone thinking that giving their money over to the black hole of government inefficiency, even with good intent or charitable merit is a fool. Nothing could be a greater destruction or pissing away of good hard work lost forever.
  • dantoujours

    Posts: 378

    Jul 11, 2012 12:30 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    dantoujours saidNot at all. Even with the a 100% estate tax the money doesn't disappear into thin air. It helps the entire next generation through better education, infrastructure, research and development, etc., not just a privileged few.

    And it is hardly a leftist principle. It was one of the founding values of the Republic. All of the founding fathers were for estate taxes:

    The historical context pertained to the extremely wealthy. The impact of inheritance taxes today impedes a small business owner or farmer from leaving the fruits of his labor to the next generation. Deny it all you want, but that is very much an attitude of today's left.


    There are already exemptions for small business and farming in the tax code.

    Again, both pass on the fruits of labour to the next generation. They do it in different ways. The estate tax ensures that more than just an elite benefit.

    And I don't have a problem with characterize it is an attitude of today's left, but would add the obvious: the Founding Fathers were the radical left of their era and we inherited this value from them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 12:54 PM GMT
    dantoujours said
    socalfitness said
    dantoujours saidNot at all. Even with the a 100% estate tax the money doesn't disappear into thin air. It helps the entire next generation through better education, infrastructure, research and development, etc., not just a privileged few.

    And it is hardly a leftist principle. It was one of the founding values of the Republic. All of the founding fathers were for estate taxes:

    The historical context pertained to the extremely wealthy. The impact of inheritance taxes today impedes a small business owner or farmer from leaving the fruits of his labor to the next generation. Deny it all you want, but that is very much an attitude of today's left.

    There are already exemptions for small business and farming in the tax code.

    Again, both pass on the fruits of labour to the next generation. They do it in different ways. The estate tax ensures that more than just an elite benefit.

    And I don't have a problem with characterize it is an attitude of today's left, but would add the obvious: the Founding Fathers were the radical left of their era and we inherited this value from them.

    The exemptions are not significant enough to alleviate the burden, and I know first hand of families that would be considered middle-class that had to make very painful decisions.

    The term, elite, suggests only the very wealthy are impacted, which is not the case. It is also a term used by many on the left to refer to those who have more than they have.

    You can cite the Founding Fathers, ignoring their opinions were in the context of the very wealthy, characterized by European aristocracy. I very much doubt most people would be against a farmer or small businessman being able to leave something to the next generation, which you, by favoring a 100% inheritance tax, clearly oppose. Moreover, your assertion that all benefit, rather than the privileged elite, goes against the inefficiencies of big government. The other poster had it right referring to that as a wasteful big hole. Even looking at the stimulus of 2009, depending on how you do the math, the cost per job ranged between $200K to $1M plus.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 1:08 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    dantoujours said
    JackBlair69 saidAll of a sudden white Liberals are against the estate tax? Welcome home, biotches.


    Who's against it? I think Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin were right and estate taxes should by close to 100% to stop the creation of an European-style aristocracy in the U.S., who can then subvert democracy and destroy the meritocracy. (Oops! Too late.) But same sex couples should recognized by the Federal government and be treated the same as opposite sex couples.

    Being in favor of 100% estate taxes goes against a principle held for many years, specifically a goal for one generation to make things better for the next. But with the left's principle of "social justice", that doesn't cut it anymore.


    Tell that to Warren Buffet who does not plan on leaving the bulk of his estate to his heirs. By giving it to a foundation in essence he is practicing a form of private estate tax.

    And don't the moneyed 5% class represent the American aristocracy and are the problem in our society.Squeezing out the middle class and pushing them further down in the social class chain of their establishment.

    What our country needs is to practice some of our founding fathers principles closer with FDR (public works) ideals to strengthen the middle class.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 1:08 PM GMT
    dantoujours said
    socalfitness said
    dantoujours saidNot at all. Even with the a 100% estate tax the money doesn't disappear into thin air. It helps the entire next generation through better education, infrastructure, research and development, etc., not just a privileged few.

    And it is hardly a leftist principle. It was one of the founding values of the Republic. All of the founding fathers were for estate taxes:

    The historical context pertained to the extremely wealthy. The impact of inheritance taxes today impedes a small business owner or farmer from leaving the fruits of his labor to the next generation. Deny it all you want, but that is very much an attitude of today's left.


    There are already exemptions for small business and farming in the tax code.

    Again, both pass on the fruits of labour to the next generation. They do it in different ways. The estate tax ensures that more than just an elite benefit.

    And I don't have a problem with characterize it is an attitude of today's left, but would add the obvious: the Founding Fathers were the radical left of their era and we inherited this value from them.


    Then why have so many families had to sell off their farms just to be able to pay the inheritance taxes in the past?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 1:24 PM GMT
    ayer2009 said

    And don't the moneyed 5% class represent the American aristocracy and are the problem in our society.Squeezing out the middle class and pushing them further down in the social class chain of their establishment.

    What our country needs is to practice some of our founding fathers principles closer with FDR (public works) ideals to strengthen the middle class.

    Really?

    Our 401Ks depend on companies making a profit despite being trapped between increases in expenses and price pressures by consumers who treat everything like one big frickin' WalMart store. Jobs are flowing offshore because we continue to expect bleeding-edge technology at a discount and wiped out our HELOCs on putting gas in our SUVs and imported crap we want but don't actually need.

    We are our own worse enemy. Now that tech companies have hooked up third world companies to the internet, say goodbye to expensive domestic labor.

    Welcome to the new 'normal'.
  • 6packabs

    Posts: 216

    Jul 11, 2012 3:45 PM GMT
    This thread is deeply perplexing and disturbing.

    I'm on here via iPhone. Not ideal for giving a good response, but man, we are going down the sewer fast when the Gates' and Buffett's and other elite hypocrites can hoodwink fools into backing the reinstitution of the "death tax" which they support but are exempt from.

    Take a farmer, he's land rich, cash poor. The land he's worked all his life has gone up in great value. He's poor and lives meager and frugal. Upon his death without estate planning, the ever noble intentioned government comes in and destroys with evil malignity of purpose the whole enterprise. Due within 9 months, is a vast sum in cash to the greedy and bloated vipers we call Uncle Sam. The heirs to this estate do not have that kind of money. They only way to raise such wicked and burdensome funds is to sell off the land, usually at a fraction of the worth in that 9 month time frame, to pay an evil government that is vastly more wasteful than private holders of wealth could ever be.

    Gone is the inheritance this family had. The land and farm/ranch they loved was just devoured and eaten away.

    The founding fathers supported this? Ahahaha. Now that's a history book I've got to see. Bull pucky!

    Jefferson in his second innaugural rejoiced that in these United States, there is no man, be he farmer, laborer, or mechanic who had ever seen a tax gatherer. That is freedom. That is liberty.

    The true elite, the Moneychangers, love stupid Americans that buy the damned propaganda of government textbooks and adopt schemes, philosophies, that ensure class Warfare and envy, that will eliminate freedom and prosperity, shrinking the middle class so that we move back into a collectivist feudalism where there are foolish serfs and the elite who suffer nothing in form of competition, as government is the all-consuming monster destroying all opportunity and keeping the rest of all but the ruling elite down into squallar and wretchedness.

    Damn big government! I hate it and all it's oppression. I'm dumbfounded at how many people foolishly look to lying politicians for answers and expect government to be a solution. Government is the greatest problem we face today, on every single front, educationally, health wise, financially, and it is the greatest threat to out peace, and pursuit of happiness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 4:10 PM GMT
    6packabs saidThis thread is deeply perplexing and disturbing.

    I know of families that had to sell off their farms for the exact same reasons you mention. But the far left and those who favor close to 100% inheritance tax have no problems with that for two reasons: 1) They fundamentally don't respect the family unit and don't believe a father should be able to leave anything of value to his son, and 2) They believe it is fundamentally not fair that one person is born into a wealthier family than another, and have no problem using govt as an instrument of their class envy.
  • jim_sf

    Posts: 2094

    Jul 11, 2012 4:29 PM GMT
    I love how this topic went directly from "hey, same-sex couples might have new tax issues related to their estates" to "OMG TEH LIBRULZ WANT TO RUIN AMURCA"/"NUH-UH, TEH CONSURVATIVZ WANT TO RUIN AMURCA".

    In any case, the current incarnation of the estate tax has a minimum threshold. It's one thing to re-evaluate the threshold, and to exempt particular portions of an estate (family farms, et al) from threshold calculations, but it's another thing entirely to suggest that charitable contributions are an attempt to evade the estate tax. Far better, IMHO, to give money to ending malaria than to create more Paris Hiltons or Kardashians.
  • synestheticxs...

    Posts: 137

    Jul 12, 2012 10:13 PM GMT
    The singular problem in this world is that some people wish to be treated better than others.

    Treat everyone the same in regards to such things and tax everyone an even amount of their income, using the tax money to pay for things like the public healthcare and infrastructure. Problem solved.

    Oh, wait. Greed still exists. Well, back to the drawing board, and the protest line.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Jul 13, 2012 4:15 AM GMT
    metta8 saidRuling poses tax issues for same-sex couples

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ruling-poses-tax-issues-for-same-sex-couples-2012-07-10?siteid=nwhpf

    It seems this thread got hijacked to a debate on whether there should be an estate tax or not. This is an anti-DOMA lawsuit, which might eventually result in equal tax treatment for gays. At the moment, it is only a district court decision, and it will be of little precedential value if the administration does not appeal. we are lucky that the case is in the 9th Circuit, which tends to be a more liberal court than most, and if the appellate court sustains the judges ruling - (and if Obama does not appeal the appellate court ruling - which is doubtful) DOMA would no longer be valid in the states in the 9th Circuit.