The Fiscal Cliff

[byu71]

Our current death tax is 40% above $5,000,000 per individual. So a couple who dies simultaneously would have $10,000,000.

You can actually protect the $10,000,000 without dieing simulatneously. Would require knowing a good financial advisor.

[All-American]

You can actually protect the $10,000,000 without dieing simulatneously. Would require knowing a good financial advisor.

That's what cracks me up about estate taxes. The only people who actually pay estate taxes are those who are too lazy, too stupid, or (most likely) too poor to be able to figure out their way around them. The notion that they're actually getting taxes from the wealthy is a farce known to anybody with even passing familiarity of how it works.

[byu71]

That's what cracks me up about estate taxes. The only people who actually pay estate taxes are those who are too lazy, too stupid, or (most likely) too poor to be able to figure out their way around them. The notion that they're actually getting taxes from the wealthy is a farce known to anybody with even passing familiarity of how it works.

Correct to a point. That point being right now 10 million. Above that point the estate tax is real and I think bull crap.

There is a reason Insurance Trusts are popular and Insurance companies sell a ton of life insurance whose sole purpose is to pay the estate tax.

You can always give the money away to charities and avoid estate taxes, but how does that help the heirs?

[Goatnapper'96]

60 billion down, 940 billion to go! We can do this!

It is actually $117 down. $62 billion in taxes and $55 billion is 50% of the sequestered $110 billion from the last debt increase debate. Baby steps my friend!

[Goatnapper'96]

You can actually protect the $10,000,000 without dieing simulatneously. Would require knowing a good financial advisor.

Yes there are trusts etc that can be set up. But I would never trust a guy not smart enough to figure out a mormon owned parochial school cannot be a top 10 football program.

[byu71]

Yes there are trusts etc that can be set up. But I would never trust a guy not smart enough to figure out a mormon owned parochial school cannot be a top 10 football program.

Apparently you are stuck in my past. Anyone who has read my epistles over the last year know I think I have a better chance of making the Celestial Kingdom than BYU becoming a top 10 football program.

I have cut my losses and moved on with joy in my heart.

[LeedsCougar]

Brilliant.

"Tea, coffee and tobacco". There was no point to convincing against a pint, neither then, nor today.

[Bo Diddley]

I want to clarify some of the numbers we're looking at in reducing defense spending.

There are 800,000 civilian employees who will face furloughs if spending cuts happen. That means they'll be sent home without pay for a period of time (2 weeks? a month?) That is a short-term mechanism until the Pentagon can see what kind of final cuts we're up against, and then people will lose jobs according to what is cut from future spending. The Aerospace Industry Association was saying up to 1 million jobs being lost by the end of 2013 with sequestration. That's got to be exaggerated.

All of the components of the military are doing through a downsizing. The Army is the largest. Current strength is somewhere over 550,000. They will downsize roughly by 60,000 over the next 5 years.

We ramped up the military for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and it's cost us dearly. But that's only one component of the fiscal problems we're facing. Certainly the military will need to cut costs over the years to come, but the real fight will be in cutting entitlement spending.

[byu71]

I just heard part of the deal is a "itemized deduction cap" on those making over $300,000. I understand why the dems have that in there. They personally don't give to charities, but prefer to take my money and deal it out to who they think need it. They are a sensitive, charitable, looking out for the underprivileged group, with our money.

That being said, this is the first I have heard the cap is in the plan. I can't find anywhere what the cap amount is. Does anyone know.

I just had a client call me. He gives about $300,000 a year to charities. If he happened to lose the whole deduction, that's a $120,000 hit. That's about the same as what his income tax is going up.

[frank ryan]

I just heard part of the deal is a "itemized deduction cap" on those making over $300,000. I understand why the dems have that in there. They personally don't give to charities, but prefer to take my money and deal it out to who they think need it. They are a sensitive, charitable, looking out for the underprivileged group, with our money.

That being said, this is the first I have heard the cap is in the plan. I can't find anywhere what the cap amount is. Does anyone know.

I just had a client call me. He gives about $300,000 a year to charities. If he happened to lose the whole deduction, that's a $120,000 hit. That's about the same as what his income tax is going up.

Yes, Democrats never give to charity.

[byu71]

Yes, Democrats never give to charity.

I don't think I said that, but I see where it could be taken that way.

Let me put it another way. The charitable deduction is more important to republicans than democrats as a general statement.

[The_Douger]

Yes, Democrats never give to charity.

They give less. Despite this, they sure seem to have strong opinions how to spend the money, though.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1#.UONP4G_onnh

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/republican-states-give-more-to-charity-than-democratic-states-cms-19923

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...beral_giv.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...stof.html?_r=0

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/republicans_versus_democrats_why_some_people_give_more_charity-90603

[Bo Diddley]

I just heard part of the deal is a "itemized deduction cap" on those making over $300,000. I understand why the dems have that in there. They personally don't give to charities, but prefer to take my money and deal it out to who they think need it. They are a sensitive, charitable, looking out for the underprivileged group, with our money.

That being said, this is the first I have heard the cap is in the plan. I can't find anywhere what the cap amount is. Does anyone know.

I just had a client call me. He gives about $300,000 a year to charities. If he happened to lose the whole deduction, that's a $120,000 hit. That's about the same as what his income tax is going up.

If you read the actual bill, it looks like they're phasing out all itemized deductions and personal exemptions above $300,000 for married people, $275,000 for heads of households and $250,000 for single people.

[frank ryan]

They give less. Despite this, they sure seem to have strong opinions how to spend the money, though.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1#.UONP4G_onnh

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/republican-states-give-more-to-charity-than-democratic-states-cms-19923

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...beral_giv.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...stof.html?_r=0

http://www.science20.com/news_articl..._charity-90603

Douger, I like you but these generalizations are not helpful. I've seen some studies that show poor people are more likely to give than wealthy people.

[Bo Diddley]

They give less. Despite this, they sure seem to have strong opinions how to spend the money, though.

This is one of the fundamental differences between the two parties. Republicans like to leave it up to individuals to take care of others through charity, and Democrats want to have a hand in doling it out fairly.