- This topic has 1 reply, 17 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[quote=”DavidCMurray”][quote=”puravidatexan”]Since David C is certain that the estate tax taking the family farm is a myth, perhaps he could solve my family dilemma. My Mom owns a beautiful place on the river that has been in my family for 150 years. When the new estate tax hits on January 1, 2013, the rate is set to be 55% with an exemption of $1 million. The close to 300 acres is valued on county tax rolls at $1.8 million. So if my 85 year old Mom dies in January, how do I pay the $440,000 that is due? And the government deserves to benefit–how?[/quote]
I certainly have no professional expertise in estate planning, so I can’t offer any concrete suggestions other than to get with a tax professional and start working out a plan now. I think I know, however, that family assets are often put into revocable trusts so that when the current owner dies, there is no taxable event.
[/quote]That’s all well and good, but how does one explain the need to do all of that “red tape” to avoid the payment of 55% to the government for land bequeth? The point being, the government should stay out of it, tax annual wealth accumulation, leave the rest alone.
No one has answered my previous questions, here’s one more, what happens when the givers don’t have anymore to give?
I am still waiting to get a reply on how to set up an offshore trust to prevent capture of funds by the US government. Does anyone have an attorney who knows how to do all that?
kwhite1, we can play the cards we’re dealt or we can wait until someone changes the game (maybe for the better; maybe not). If your mother’s holdings are liable to taxation at the time of her death under the current rules then now is the time to be doing some estate planning assuming the worst case scenario.
Or, as an alternative, you can devote your energies to complaining and wishful thinking. That, of course, would appear to be the expensive way to go.
Victoria, why does your trust need to be offshore? Have you actually consulted anyone about setting up a revocable trust in your home state or are you assuming something based upon facts you haven’t fully investigated?
I have several friends who are very aware of how to save their family estates. The problem, in their cases, is that 70 and 80 year old parents don’t comprehend the need. After all, they have a will in place and they believe that is all they need to do.
Another issue is the expense of setting up a trust/partnership which I’ve been told can run in the $5 – $10 thousand range. If taxes don’t break you, lawyer fees will!
[quote=”critterhill”]
Another issue is the expense of setting up a trust/partnership which I’ve been told can run in the $5 – $10 thousand range. If taxes don’t break you, lawyer fees will![/quote]
The figure you quote, $5 – $10,000 to set up a revocable trust is much more than what I think I’ve been given to understand [b]as things were in Michigan a few years back[/b]. Nevertheless, spending $10,000 to avoid a 55% tax on kwhite1’s mother’s $800,000 land value in excess of the pending $1 million exemption seems like a bargain.
Lessee . . . $800,000 x 55% tax = $440,000 in tax minus (say) $10,000 attorney’s fees = a net savings of $430,000.
Yup, it’s a bargain!
[quote=”DavidCMurray”][quote=”critterhill”]
Another issue is the expense of setting up a trust/partnership which I’ve been told can run in the $5 – $10 thousand range. If taxes don’t break you, lawyer fees will![/quote]
The figure you quote, $5 – $10,000 to set up a revocable trust is much more than what I think I’ve been given to understand [b]as things were in Michigan a few years back[/b]. Nevertheless, spending $10,000 to avoid a 55% tax on kwhite1’s mother’s $800,000 land value in excess of the pending $1 million exemption seems like a bargain.
Lessee . . . $800,000 x 55% tax = $440,000 in tax minus (say) $10,000 attorney’s fees = a net savings of $430,000.
Yup, it’s a bargain!
[/quote]Sweet! My mom is leaving me $800,000! Guess I will send her a card this year for Christmas after all.
My father in law set up an irrivocable trust and I think he told me is cost somewhere in the $5,000 range.
I can’t speak to the differences, nor to the advantages and disadvantages of either, but there are “revocable” trusts and “irrevocable” trusts. If it were not an important distinction in law, there probably wouldn’t be both types.
There are differences, too, between trusts and the “partnerships” to which critterhill referred early. The two terms are not interchangeable.
[quote=”VictoriaLST”]I am still waiting to get a reply on how to set up an offshore trust to prevent capture of funds by the US government. Does anyone have an attorney who knows how to do all that?[/quote]
The professionals I know Victoria in any of the ‘safe’ and ‘respectable’ offshore jurisdictions won’t even reply to your emails if they know you are a U.S. citizen (or a Green card holder) and they will only consider working with $1 million [i]minimum[/i] accounts for [b]NON-U.S. citizens[/b].
U.S. citizens are NOT wanted by any – I repeat any – of the [i]thousands[/i] of offshore investment management companies I have connections with … There’s freedom for ya!
Scott
[quote=”Scott”][quote=”VictoriaLST”]I am still waiting to get a reply on how to set up an offshore trust to prevent capture of funds by the US government. Does anyone have an attorney who knows how to do all that?[/quote]
The professionals I know Victoria in any of the ‘safe’ and ‘respectable’ offshore jurisdictions won’t even reply to your emails if they know you are a U.S. citizen (or a Green card holder) and they will only consider working with $1 million [i]minimum[/i] accounts for [b]NON-U.S. citizens[/b].
U.S. citizens are NOT wanted by any – I repeat any – of the [i]thousands[/i] of offshore investment management companies I have connections with … There’s freedom for ya!
Scott
[/quote]You can’t blame them. by doing business with Americans.. you all of a sudden become partners with the United Sates of America. 😀
Victoria
there are options that you can always research BUT they are more bolder options and may not fit your comfort zones.
your best bet would be just to sit back and enjoy the ride.
David
You guys/gals might appreciate this article…
[url=http://www.activistpost.com/2012/12/show-this-to-anyone-that-believes-that.html#more]Show This To Anyone Who Believes Taxes Are Too Low.[/url]
The following figures come directly out of a report by Citizens for Tax Justice. These are combined figures for the tax years 2008, 2009 and 2010.
During those three years, all of the corporations below made a lot of money. Yet all of them paid net taxes that were below zero for those three years combined.
How is that possible? Well, it turns out that instead of paying in taxes to the federal government, they were actually getting money back.
So for these corporations, their rate of taxation was actually below zero.
If you have not seen these before, you are going to have a hard time believing some of these statistics…..
*Honeywell*
Profits: $4.9 billion
Taxes: -$34 million*Fed Ex*
Profits: $3 billion
Taxes: -$23 million*Wells Fargo*
Profits: $49.37 billion
Taxes: -$681 million*Boeing*
Profits: $9.7 billion
Taxes: -$178 million*Verizon*
Profits: $32.5 billion
Taxes: -$951 million*Dupont*
Profits: $2.1 billion
Taxes -$72 million*American Electric Power*
Profits: $5.89 billion
Taxes -$545 million*General Electric*
Profits: $7.7 billion
Taxes: -$4.7 billionAnd people whine about hungry folks getting Food Stamps!
I just wonder how many country club memberships the executives of any of those negative tax payers were finally able to afford with their corporate welfare.
What percentage of the federal government’s deficit spending would have been offset by just the $2.488 [b]B[/b]illion you’ve listed, Scott? And how much more did you miss?
What do you suppose would have been the impact on the deficit had just these corporations paid income tax, at the lower corporate rate, on their $115.16 [b]B[/b]illion in profits?
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]And people whine about hungry folks getting Food Stamps!
I just wonder how many country club memberships the executives of any of those negative tax payers were finally able to afford with their corporate welfare.
What percentage of the federal government’s deficit spending would have been offset by just the $2.488 [b]B[/b]illion you’ve listed, Scott? And how much more did you miss?
What do you suppose would have been the impact on the deficit had just these corporations paid income tax, at the lower corporate rate, on their $115.16 [b]B[/b]illion in profits?
[/quote]
David
I don’t want to sound disrespectful because your obviously an smart guy and I have enjoyed many of your posts here. and just the fact that you had the courage and moxie to leave the U.S. and live here tells me alot of your character. .
but I have just come to the conclusion that our viewpoints regarding some of these topics are so opposite it amazes me.
for example;
these corporations comply with the laws that the government provides to keep companies like these in the U.S. there is a very fine line of how much abuse these company’s will take
it’s not like the average worker who has ties to the communities and family. corporations have no ties to communities and if push come to shove they migrate to the most friendly business environment.
why else are companies like Rawlings.. that makes baseballs and Intel are here.??
If Corporations were operating illegally.. that would be a totally different thing. BUT they are not.
so why should we blast them for maximizing their tax obligations.
If David C Murray incorporated and built a business that was generating revenue you would also be able to hire accountants instead of H&R Block to minimize tax obligations.
and it would be more intense if you were a public company since you also have shareholders to account to.
all of this negative flack towards these companies
what about JOBS!!! they actually provide.
how many jobs do these companies actually provide
NOT Government jobs where they pay salaries by stealing money from the tax payer to pay them BUT from revenues that these companies produce.
I am not saying all companies are great and at the top these CEO’s make huge amounts of money.
BUT so do top earners in many fields
what about these idiot celebrities
are they worth the money they make BUT we don’t hear much about that.
Johnny Depp made $100 million dollars from royalties from his last pirates movie. one hundred million dollars!!!!! and actor!!!
that is our whacky culture.. the examples are endless.
anyway.. this is all just conversation because I am living here in costa rica and life is good.
and I think David’s life is also good and I wish him well.
david
None of us here know all the numbers. We look at some data and stats and form opinions.
But the bottom line is that the system under which we all labor is corrupt to the core. It was conceived by psychopathy. Thieves, bullies and murderers write the laws, occupy high positions of corporate authority and staff the military and police forces to execute those laws. They buy government and bend the educational system to produce compliant slaves.They follow up the educational brainwashing with corporate media propaganda so that opinions like the above can dominate.
When you have a system which values everything and everybody
in terms of the false concept of money, you have perversity. You have an upside down, dysfunctional world filled with manufactured scarcity and the ridiculous, contrived situation of an athlete or actor who is valued at hundreds of millions of dollars while 2 billion souls suffer from hunger for lack of money to buy food. If you cannot see how stupid and evil this is, then your mental conditioning is irreversible.[quote=”DavidCMurray”]And people whine about hungry folks getting Food Stamps!
I just wonder how many country club memberships the executives of any of those negative tax payers were finally able to afford with their corporate welfare.
What percentage of the federal government’s deficit spending would have been offset by just the $2.488 [b]B[/b]illion you’ve listed, Scott? And how much more did you miss?
What do you suppose would have been the impact on the deficit had just these corporations paid income tax, at the lower corporate rate, on their $115.16 [b]B[/b]illion in profits?
[/quote]
I woke up in the middle of the night trying to do the math on the numbers Scott has provided. If I’m managing the decimals correctly, the $2.488 [b]B[/b]illion in negative taxes (taxes that you and I paid) these companies received would have provided almost 178 million meals to Food Stamp recipients at New Jersey rates.
I wonder how the Hurricane Sandy victims feel about that . . .
Knowing the above, why would anyone pay income tax? Because if you don’t, the IRS will use force against you to seize your property and possibly your person. Can anyone tell me why this does NOT make you a slave?
Whatever the extent of corruption in Costa Rica, it does not seem to be as offensively open and in our faces as it is in the US. Income disparity in the US is at an historically high level and when these unfair tax comparisons are added to the mix, I have to wonder why we have not seen a violent American revolution yet.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
