Trader 42, Thanks, I knew there was some sort of connection through mom, but I had forgotten exactly what it was. And IBM had the opportunity to buy the o/s but decided not to. There's nothing wrong with that, but Gates Sr has been part of the Warren Buffett chorus that the estate tax should be retained because it's unfair for the rich to be able to set up their children. I guess it's ok to set them up while you're alive, but it's a big problem if some farmer or small businessman wants his kids to be able to carry on the business.
It's actually not a "big problem". 99% of farmers pay no estate tax. Farms and businesses are almost NEVER sold to pay estate taxes. In fact, in 1999, only 2% of all estates nationwide paid estate tax. The anti-estate tax lobby is well spun, and loose with the facts, imho. -Sub
No, it's not a problem if you're Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. For someone who worked 16 hour days for 35 years in hopes of leaving a viable business for their kids, it can be a huge problem. The people who get screwed are not the mega-rich, who can afford to set up private foundations to employ all their relatives and dole out money to leftwing groups. The people who get screwed are those with enough in assets to get socked by the tax but not enough to make avoidance worthwhile. I'm also fascinated by the argument that only 2% pay it. If only 2% of people are robbed, does that mean the police can ignore robbery? If it's wrong, it's wrong, if only one person has to pay it. This tax generates very little revenue, costs people enormous amounts of money in avoidance strategies and sends all the wrong signals in terms of work and saving.
AAA....you are my absolute favorite guy here. Only you can make this into a "leftwing" thing. Amazing. Really!!! Now, I have been out of this field for a long time, and I am sure some of the numbers have changed. But when I was a retail broker, the rule for the "death tax" for farmers and ranchers was pretty much the same as for everyone. At least I believed it was. At that time, to the best of my recollection, there was a 600k exemption for inheritance tax (which was really 1.2mm, because an estate could be passed down from husband and wife separately. So dad dies, leaves 600k tax free, and then mom dies and leaves another 600k). But anything above and beyond the exempted amount had to be paid within 90 days. As anyone knows, land is not a very liquid asset. Selling a farm or ranch (or the "north 40") is not a realistic way to meet the tax obligation. This is why insurance salesmen who do business with ranchers and farmers make a ton of $. Insurance proceeds are tax free, and always have been. Any amount. Even for "right wing" good guys. Just like for the "left wing" bad guys. Peace, RS
RS, I'm glad you liked the leftwing angle. You do have to admit it is ironic that the foundations established by some of the worst of the robber barons like Carnegie and Ford are totally leftwing now. I think you're right about the insurance dodge, but my point is why should you have to make uneconomic insurance purchases to avoid a stupid socialistic tax? Also the exemption has been raised to I think 1.1 mill. In other words, a typical middle class home and a decent IRA. Not exactly gates level wealth.
Yeah, he "leftwing angle" was beautiful. I admire your consistency. Always have and always will. Guys like you give me faith. It is always encouraging to know that there are "right wingers" with brains (exceptional exceptions, but there you are!!!) You and Hapaboy and a few others have a lot of balancing out to do for the MondoTraders and Dotslashes of the world. LOL. As for the Carnegie and Ford foundations....maybe it has to do with "atonement" to some degree. Well, insurance is insurance. The fact remains that a young couple with little children that lives hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck needs life insurance to assure the survival of their kids if they should die. For wealthy landowners, it is not about survival. It is about retaining wealth. So who really pays more dearly for insurance? The guy that spends 5-10% of his take home pay to protect his family from starvation, or the landowner that doesn't even notice his premium (which if I am not mistaken, is usually taken from the tax sheltered part of a "Universal Life" type policy, or whatever is in vogue now....it has been almost 20 years since I had to know this stuff). Also, I am now a bit depressed. I thought my wife and I were "typical middle class". But we do not have enough assets to exceed the 2.2 exemption for us both. I guess either the definition of "middle class" has changed while I wasn't looking, or our kids already spent us out of their inheritance. Or both. Peace, RS