patrick.net

SQT,

I felt bad for her when her son died too. I thought she was a terrible mother, but no one (including Saddam Hussein) deserves to have their child die before them.

Huh?

GC,

I think it's conventionally understood that men with neither a job or a bank account have other problems too, all of which make them less than desireable husbands.

SFWoman Says:

> What is the $$ amount that the ‘death tax’ kicks
> in at now? It doesn’t really tax your death, unless
> you have a decent estate, I find that such an
> odd name for it.

The people that use the term “Death Tax” are usually Libertarians or Republicans (or others that think that the government wastes most of the money we pay in taxes) and the people that use the term “Estate Tax” are usually Democrats or Greens (or others that get money from the government and think that the government could solve all our problems if the “rich” only paid more taxes).

2001 Death Tax Rate 55% Exemption $675,000
2002 Death Tax Rate 50% Exemption $1,000,000
2003 Death Tax Rate 49% Exemption $1,000,000
2004 Death Tax Rate 48% Exemption $1,500,000
2005 Death Tax Rate 47% Exemption $1,500,000
2006 Death Tax Rate 46% Exemption $2,000,000
2007 Death Tax Rate 45% Exemption $2,000,000
2008 Death Tax Rate 45% Exemption $2,000,000
2009 Death Tax Rate 45% Exemption 3,500,000
2010 Death Tax Rate 0% No death tax on any Estate
2011 Death Tax Rate 55% Exemption $1,000,000

P.S. In 2000 less than 2% of the Americans who died paid the Death Tax and some states had less than 100 total estates over the $675K exemption (that was $650K in 1999)…

P.P.S. My Dad has joked that he plans to hire a “food taster” (like the medieval kings had to avoid poisoning) in 2010…

I see no reason to tone down my opinion simply because they may offend the sensibility of some,

Precisely. Those are your rights. But you have failed to offer any analysis of supporting that opinion, and as I said earlier, simply hiding behind your right to say whatever you want to say. But that's your right too, you do not have to offer any justification for saying it.

A child, who is less than a year old, lost it's mother. It's a grave loss. A loss that cannot be replaced. A child needs a mother, especially a mother at that age. For good physical, emotional and psychological development. You suggested, very casually, that it was better for the child for her mother to have died. That is a very serious statement.

What you in essence are suggesting is, you think it's better for kids to lose their parents if their parenting skills are not up to your definition of "good parenting". Saying things are better by someone being dead because they do not fit with your idea of "goodness" is strikingly similar to the viewpoint of most terrorists.

Saying things are better by someone being dead because they do not fit with your idea of “goodness” is strikingly similar to the viewpoint of most terrorists.

Not always. Terrorists are better dead.

At some point we do need to draw the line between good and evil.

StuckinBA,

Are you suggesting that adopted children, who grew up without a biological parent, are irredemably damaged.

I'm not suggesting ANS's child grow up without responsible guardians. In fact, I was originally suggesting that this girl would do better in the hands of responsible guardians than she would in the care of a highly irresponsible parent.

My paternal grandmother's mother died when my grandmother was two and she was packed off to her maternal grandparents. However, she was reasonably treated there and grew up quite well adjusted. My extended family has suffered a few instances of kids who lost parents in infancy or childhood. They managed to grow up okay and I don't see the deep psychological scar. It's not nothing, but I'm not convinced that the damage is worse than growing up with outright bad parents.

She unfortunately will have a different mother figure so the arguement of her life being over because her mother passed on is BS.

Who said the child's life was over ? What happens to the child as a result of this tragedy is simply unknown future. The issue we are debating is completely different.

The issue is statements like... "Since I don't like the person's particular skills, I think xyz is better off with that person dead."

Not always. Terrorists are better dead.
At some point we do need to draw the line between good and evil.

Sure. But that is when we know with enough certainty that they either killed or plan to kill other innocent people. Is ANS in that category ?

astrid :

Please see my answer to Wood River.

Is ANS in that category ?

Of course NOT.

But that is when we know with enough certainty that they either killed or plan to kill other innocent people.

For national security (a greater good), sometimes we just need to make reasonable guesses.

"Saying things are better by someone being dead because they do not fit with your idea of “goodness” is strikingly similar to the viewpoint of most terrorists. "

You live in a society where a majority supports the death penalty. They do not merely state an opinion but act to force that opinion on other people.

Secondly, there is a huge distinction between personally believing something to be right, even to the repugnance of others, and acting (esp. violently acting) to force that opinion on other people. I would never wish ANS death - I'm not even sure the world is better off for her death, I was merely observing that based on my knowledge as of 90 minutes or so ago, I thought her death would increase the change of her daughter for a normal life and being responsibly cared for.

Are you suggesting that adopted children, who grew up without a biological parent, are irredemably damaged.

Completely unrelated issue. I only said there was a grave loss. How the child cope with the loss is not under discussion.

FAB,

I am fiscally conservative, but am still going to call an estate tax an estate tax. It simply doesn't tax death, so calling it a 'death tax' seems rather Rovian.

I am not someone who believes that government take care of every-one's wants and desires, but let's call a spade a spade. The tax is on estates over a certain valuation, not on death.

StuckinBA,

I'm not going to argue further on this point. I think you've misread the intent of my original statement and responses.

Shall we resume the discussion on food?

Peter P.,

And who will make that reasonable guess? I would hope not the same people who have been making reasonable guesses (which all turn out to be worng) as of late.

You do bring up a good point though, perhaps ANS was a Fembot.

worng means not correct.

GC,

ANS was a special case. She was, in my original contention, a complete trainwreck who had screwed up her son's life. No one is saying the average child is benefitted by the loss of a parent.

You live in a society where a majority supports the death penalty.

Again a diversion. Death penalty is not given because of subjective opinion of someone's skills. It is given after conclusive evidence of killing others. Or whatever the legal way of phrasing it. But that's a different topic.

I was merely observing that based on my knowledge as of 90 minutes or so ago, I thought her death would increase the change of her daughter for a normal life and being responsibly cared for.

I have very little knowledge about ANS. Your conclusion could be true. I just don't like the method of arriving at it. But I guess, let's agree to disagree and move on.

Anna Nicole Smith --and other f***ed-up Gen-X celebs like her-- give my generation a bad name. Her drug-addled, greed-obsessed, narcissistic train wreck of a lifestyle would have made any Boomer proud. I don't celebrate anyone's death, but I can't say it was unexpected.

BTW, even though I said no more replies. I'd like to point out that an adopted infant and an orphaned infant raised by guardians can quite analogous. In both instances, the infant is too young at the time of death to experience the grief of an older child, and the place of the biological parent could be replaced by surrogates.

SFWoman & FAB,

We're getting into estate planning here and I'm not an expert in this area. So what I'm about to say might not be entirely accurate.

I think the main reason so few actually end up paying the "death tax" is a combination of good estate planning and favorable asset transfer laws.

In addition to the estate transfer exemption, there's also a lifetime gift tax exemption of $1mm for each giftor. Also, the estate tax exemption of $2mm is for each person, and since most wealthy estates are built up by a couple. Realistically at the end, the exemption is $6mm when all is accounted for.

Another thing is that each person is allowed to gift any person $12k (this number changes quite often) every year without that counting toward your lifetime limit and without gift taxes. So you and your husband can gift each of your children $24k a year tax free. Many wealthy families start doing this very early on in a child's life.

There are, of course, other ways to decrease taxes. But the basic items I just listed would suffice for most families.

And who will make that reasonable guess? I would hope not the same people who have been making reasonable guesses (which all turn out to be worng) as of late.

Someone must do the work. They need to do a good job. Even so, there will be mistakes. If the mistakes are reasonable, they should be seen as acceptable.

We cannot avoid that simply because of a few failures.

But you did give the impression (IMO) that the little girl was doomed to a life of misery and despair since she had lost her mother.

I didn't intend to give that impression, so sorry if I came across as such. Time heals a lot of sorrows. But not having the sorrow is even better.

But yes, let's move onto estate taxes and generation skipping transfers...

Please refrain from attacking any person. We do NOT want to expose patrick to any sort of liability.

PS - please don't hold this too much against me, but I am more of a Hobbesian Benthamnite than a Kantian...

Peter P,

I am quite unlikely to ever attack anyone, except annoymously while blogging, and then not too much.

SQT,

I never wished death on ANS and I wasn't trying to say good riddance in my original statement. Mostly, I was clumsily looking for a silver lining to the end of her trainwreck of a life.

I am quite unlikely to ever attack anyone, except annoymously while blogging, and then not too much.

Perhaps I am just paranoid. I only attack unnamed groups and archetypes. :)

New thread topic in progress -bear with me.

Careful, you never know what vegetarians and open space advocates are capable of.

@SQT,

;-)

SFWoman said:
I am fiscally conservative, but am still going to call an estate tax an estate tax. It simply doesn’t tax death, so calling it a ‘death tax’ seems rather Rovian.
Wikipedia has a nice explanation:
The term was popularized in a famous memorandum written by Republican pollster Frank Luntz. He recommended that the party use the term "death tax" when referring to the estate tax, writing that the term "death tax" "kindled voter resentment in a way that 'inheritance tax' and 'estate tax' do not"

MtViewRenter said:
So you and your husband can gift each of your children $24k a year tax free.
Don't forget to do this with appreciated stock. Then the little ones can sell in 2008-10 and get the gains tax free. (see Anthony's post above).

new thread: Please help the REIC!

Don’t forget to do this with appreciated stock. Then the little ones can sell in 2008-10 and get the gains tax free. (see Anthony’s post above).

Interesting. What is they already own the stock ?

MtViewRenter Says:

> We’re getting into estate planning here and I’m not an
> expert in this area. So what I’m about to say might
> not be entirely accurate.
> I think the main reason so few actually end up paying
> the “death tax” is a combination of good estate planning
> and favorable asset transfer laws.

Most Americans don’t pay the “death tax” because their net worth never comes even close to the exemption.

The majority of Americans that actually pay the tax have estates that are just above the exemption and can often get below the cap with some gifting or other simple tax strategies.

A very small number of Americans with huge estates (who pay tax attorneys more than the typical American family takes home every year) are able to avoid the tax using more complex tax strategies.

P.S. I like to call it the death tax since it really is a tax after death where the government takes half of every penny (over the exemption) that you were able to save with the government already taking over half of every penny that most people make in taxes and fess including, but not limited to: federal income taxes, state income taxes, social security taxes, gas taxes, phone taxes, road taxes, hotel taxes, sales taxes, liquor taxes, tobacco taxes, motor vehicle taxes, drivers license fee, fishing license fee, hunting license fee, brokers license fee, park fees, road fees, tire disposal fees, bridge tolls…

FAB,

Once you get over the hurdle of income tax and SSI/Medicare contributions, the take is significantly smaller. For the extremely wealthy, who don't pay much income taxes, quite a bit will be in long term capital gains, taxed at a much lower rate than 50%.

MtView,

The $12K gift allowance is something that you do not have to be wealthy to take advantage of. My husband and I started to do this for a fund when our first was born. My brother started it when his kids were first born as well. It just seems like a smart way to start building up money for a child.