I may be very mistaken here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But my understanding is that the estate tax issue is only a controversy at the several million dollar level. (I'm not sure what the exact point of demarcation is.) It is my admittedly limited understanding that estate taxes are only being proposed above that "X" million dollar level. If that is indeed the case, then I would think that this would have little if any negative effect on those whom you characterize as the "working people." Again, I may be mistaken. If so, then please clarify.
I've never understood how people categorize Jewish as a race and not a belief. Must be an east coast thing. out west, you are Jewish if you believe in the religion. otherwise, you are not. doesn't matter how you were born. you might as well call a person born into a catholic family, a catholic no matter what. weird shit. personally, I would consider myself Jewish if I believed in it, even though I am almost nearly 90% British (episcopalian family) by ancestry, with a little Cherokee thrown in. My point? Buffet is not Jewish. who would care anyway?
...agreed. Unless it's considered reasonable that a person can actually acquire genetic stock from a fictional character in a story book, I would say to be a jew is to have specific cultural and religious ties, and is not a question of race in the usual sense of the word. Warren Buffet decides his religion himself. If he is jewish or not is up to him, nothing to do with blood relationships.
Warren Buffet means nothing to me however, Milton Friedman shoulda slapped the shit outta that arrogant little bitch during her know-nothing interview of him for her film. Instead he rolled his eyes and excused himself politely. Nicole Buffet may be a nice person but she came across by virtue of the film as a spoiled brat and an idiot. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0819791/
You'll love this Doc. What more would you expect from the school Obama famously "guest lectures"... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-milton-friedman-flap-18-jun18,0,5015442.story
That's very funny that U of Chicago's different political factions are trying to play tug-of-war with Friedman's legacy. However, it's interesting that the political spectrum has shifted so far to the right since the mid-70's that Friedman would he be alive today would be labeled a liberal by the know-nothing media talking heads that influence so much of today's idiots.....and ET posters. thanks for the link.
I don't know the exact cutoff level for the estate tax either. I believe it went up every year as part of the Bush tax cuts and was supposed to be eliminated entirely. Unless those tax cuts are made permanent however, it kicks back in an a year or two at a low level of million or two total estate, if I am remembering correctly. The rates are very high as well. As for the working people argument, plenty of small businessmen, mid level managers, etc, people we don't think of as the rich, can accumulate sizeable estates, often just by owning a house, maybe a vacation place and a few well-chosen stocks. Are these really the people we want to punish in the name of "fairness?" A lot of lawyers, accountants, fund managers, etc are against repeal of the estate tax because avoiding it is such a big part of their business. Setting up private foundations is a staple of the tax departments of big law firms. Personally, I would like to see this scam eliminated.
It would actually be in Buffet's best financial interest to endorse MCCain since Obama would probably make more efforts to prop up the dollar where as MCCain will continue Bush's low dollar policies.
It's not as high as you might think, only $2M and it's going to be rasied to $3.5M in 2009 i believe. $2M is not that out of the reach of most people. Using my parents for example, 2 people with 2 401ks, 2 IRAs, and stock accounts that have been growing for the last 30 years plus a house that's paid for can easily be over $2M.