AtlGuy
join:2000-10-17
Marietta, GA
1 edit | reply to fiberguy
Re: ....so?
I've never been in the situation, but couldn't Sprint sue his estate for payment owed?
Not that I think it would get to that point, but that was something that crossed my mind. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | They don't really sue the living... so I doubt they'd sue the dead. |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | reply to AtlGuy
Death doesn't necessarily cancel your debts. It becomes the responsbility of your estate to pay off the oustanding bills.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | exactly. You basically move your debt from your lifeless corpse over to one thats still got some life in it...shame. Moeny, money, money...collect off of pain, Its the American Way.... |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy  :They don't really sue the living... so I doubt they'd sue the dead. Said by someone who has never administered an estate. 
If you want to be in probate forever, with collection agencies harassing you even more than they do the living, don't pay the estate's debts. Sprint may very well not sue, but the agencies they sell the debt to certainly do.
Cable companies do the same thing, by the way, usually with far less supporting evidence than a contract or lease.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus! |
|
Plldwnyrpnts
join:2003-04-19
Chicago, IL
| reply to FiL
Exactly! My favorite part of all of this is the family members that get something when they go to probate will have to pay taxes on what they receive. Talk about the biggest American scam ever. Is that called the "Gift Tax"?
I wonder if it would just be easier to put someone's name on your property so when you die, that other person becomes the sole owner. This way taxes are avoided. Anyone?? |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| It's called the estate tax, and generally you only pay if the estate net worth is X million dollars. Recently they were trying to bump it to 10, and I'm not sure if they pushed that through. Some of the richest people in the world back this tax, and list it as a debt owed to the society that allowed them to be prosperous. It's hard to argue that people who did nothing but be related to someone who worked hard for a lot of money should only be entitled to half of it. boo hoo.
Large amounts of inherited wealth generally do more harm than good, especially in the extremes. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Plldwnyrpnts
Those family members (estate beneficiaries) do not pay taxes on what they receive. It has already been taxed at the estate level. The rate is 45% of the estate's net worth over $2,000,000 for last year (TY2006) through tax year 2008. The exemption amount is $3.5 million in TY2009 and in 2010 it is phased out entirely, assuming that Congress does not change its mind before then.
You would me amazed how easy it is to hit $2 million...
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus! |
|
MooJohn
join:2005-12-18
Milledgeville, GA
·Windstream
| What shocks me the most is not that you're taxed after the first 2 million but they think almost half the estate is a fair tax rate!!!!
Someone who's running a successful business (or farm, or medical practice, etc.) dies and leaves their holdings to family. HALF of it is gone from the start since most people's attitude is "they have millions; they won't miss some of it." I can't think of any business that can continue to run successfully after being chopped in half thanks to the death tax. If this same tax was levied on all estates, imagine the uproar!
The people that earned these millions paid taxes (in the highest bracket, I might add) when they were earned. Why should it be taxed again when it is left to family?
--
John M - Cranky network guy |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| The purpose was to pare down the Rockefellers, Morgans, Vanderbilts, Carnegies and other so-called "robber baron" families at the turn of the 20th century and made some sense back then. Today it's just a huge tax honeypot which attracts every type of politician. Ayn Rand was right.
Speaking from personal experience, that tax check was the largest I've ever written. Well into six figures. It was more painful than a root canal.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus! |
|
Plldwnyrpnts
join:2003-04-19
Chicago, IL
| reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl :It's called the estate tax, and generally you only pay if the estate net worth is X million dollars. Recently they were trying to bump it to 10, and I'm not sure if they pushed that through. Some of the richest people in the world back this tax, and list it as a debt owed to the society that allowed them to be prosperous. It's hard to argue that people who did nothing but be related to someone who worked hard for a lot of money should only be entitled to half of it. boo hoo. Large amounts of inherited wealth generally do more harm than good, especially in the extremes. It's complete and utter bullshit! There is no way in hell, just because I didn't earn it, the government should be allowed to take half of it. Explain to me WHY the government is entitled to it. They sure as hell didn't work hard for it.
Fortunately I don't/won't have this problem as me and my family are BROKE! And the rich and the politicians are the ones that are setting this crap up, so it's basically for themselves. But at the same time, think about how many people this has kept from joining that elite group of wealthy snobs. Maybe that's the whole point to that tax (sneaks in conspiracy theory.) |
|
mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS | reply to n2jtx
I think the relatives are only liable up to the limit of the estates net worth... meaning if I die and owe $10,000, but only have $5,000 worth of crap to pass on to my relatives, they can't be held liable for the remaining $5,000. I win. |
|
kyramilan
join:2006-11-26
Pensacola, FL
| reply to Plldwnyrpnts
said by Plldwnyrpnts :Exactly! My favorite part of all of this is the family members that get something when they go to probate will have to pay taxes on what they receive. Talk about the biggest American scam ever. Is that called the "Gift Tax"? I wonder if it would just be easier to put someone's name on your property so when you die, that other person becomes the sole owner. This way taxes are avoided. Anyone?? Yep, giving away your assets before death prevents the death tax. |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| reply to Plldwnyrpnts
Re: ....so?
I doubt the tax rate is 50%.
It only applies to those with multi-million dollar inheritances.
I generally agree the gov't shouldn't be entitled to one's money but that's pretty well established. They sure don't work hard for it!
Taxes like this are ones I support more. I think those who inherit 10 million can afford to pay 2 million of it to the gov't. Aw, only got 8 million for free from your dead uncle? I'm so sorry
I'd much rather that policy. If we're talking about unfair taxes, how about taking 1/3rd of a low-middle-class salary! That's a lot more painful.
Repealing the Estate Tax is just another friendly backslap for wealthy politicians to give to their wealthy political backers. You and I will never be affected by it.
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Plldwnyrpnts
said by Plldwnyrpnts :said by Ahrenl :It's called the estate tax, and generally you only pay if the estate net worth is X million dollars. Recently they were trying to bump it to 10, and I'm not sure if they pushed that through. Some of the richest people in the world back this tax, and list it as a debt owed to the society that allowed them to be prosperous. It's hard to argue that people who did nothing but be related to someone who worked hard for a lot of money should only be entitled to half of it. boo hoo. Large amounts of inherited wealth generally do more harm than good, especially in the extremes. It's complete and utter bullshit! There is no way in hell, just because I didn't earn it, the government should be allowed to take half of it. Explain to me WHY the government is entitled to it. They sure as hell didn't work hard for it. Fortunately I don't/won't have this problem as me and my family are BROKE! And the rich and the politicians are the ones that are setting this crap up, so it's basically for themselves. But at the same time, think about how many people this has kept from joining that elite group of wealthy snobs. Maybe that's the whole point to that tax (sneaks in conspiracy theory.) The government is the people's stewart who provided the environment that enabled the accumulation of the large amount of wealth. I'd say the environment did a heck of a lot more to earn it than you did. I do think all tax programs with exemption limits should be inflation adjusted, and that 2m is too low. Also there should be an exemption if say 70% or more of the value is due to a small (under 50m) business or single real estate holding.
That being said, people who are rich generally have gotten there by being talented, some of which is genetic, and is probably passed down through procreation. Therefore passing on large piles of wealth to survivors who haven't had the chance to contribute their potential to societies talent pool diminishes society by removing their incentive to do so. That's why the estate tax, properly implemented, should remain.
Most people will make between 1-2 million in their ENTIRE LIFETIME. If you can't be happy with being handed 5m+ when you could have gotten 10m+ then we have no common frame of reference with which to continue this conversation. |
|
04875776
Rollin' up my dog ends
Premium
join:2006-11-14
Chicago, IL | reply to KoolMoe
This year, the estate tax rate is 45% of the amount above $2 million. Doubt away, but it doesn't make the rate lower. |
|
