It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Estate Tax...More Windfalls for Big Oil Execs

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
As the Senate gets ready to vote on H.R 8 (Estate Tax repeal) this article outlines who is saving the most money. The estate tax was established in 1916 as a way to insure that large companies would have to pay a more egalitarian share of the Tax Burden for the Country.
 



www.democrats.reform.house.gov
Next week the Senate is scheduled to consider legislation (H.R. 8) to repeal the estate tax. Repealing the tax, which has been law since 1916, is estimated to cost $1 trillion from 2011-2021. Although the tax affects few Americans, repeal will give some families extraordinary windfalls. The CEO's of major oil companies, for instance, would get enormous benefits if H.R. 8 were enacted. The family of one oil executive, Lee Raymond (the former ExxonMobil CEO), alone could receive a tax break worth over $160 million.

This report analyzes the impact that repeal would have on the families of the senior executives for the major oil companies. In 2005, the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee released a similar analysis showing that repealing the estate tax repeal would save the President, Vice President, and 11 cabinet members as much as $344 million.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So i have been against the repeal of the Estate tax since they tried to get rid of it last time. There are those who say that the Estate Tax Unfairly tagerts the Rich and Elite in our society. To those people I say, "yes" it does and it does because the rich and elite would not be that way were it not for those of us who choose to buy thier products or shop in thier stores...and as such they, just as we do, should have to give back for the betterment of the whole.

Since the Carnegies and the Rockafellers Rich American's have had the falicous thought that it was okay to rape the people and make a huge profit and get a way with it. While the Estate Tax is in no way a defense against these Large Corporations and Families it is the little mans only recourse.

At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, this analysis estimates the impact that a permanent repeal of the estate tax would have on the tax liabilities of six oil company executives: Lee Raymond, the former ExxonMobil CEO, and the current CEOs of the five largest U.S. oil companies. The analysis finds that these individuals are likely to receive a windfall of up to $211 million if the estate tax is permanently repealed. Mr. Raymond alone could receive a tax break worth over $160 million.


So....how many trailer park right wingers can we expect to vote yes on this or vote yes for the Representative who would vote yes on the Repeal of the estate tax. This is what the Republican Party is known for....they convince Low Income families to vote for tax breaks for the SUPER rich, its mind boggling.

Basically The Buisness of Government is setting out to finacially bankrupt out country and as usual no one in the congress cares....YOu can see them salivating at the thoughts of the donations they are going to get from thier masters if they can just get this tax repealed.

Related News Links:

www.democrats.reform.house.gov
www.democrats.reform.house.gov
www.commondreams.org




posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I'd like an explanation as to how, when a man dies, an oil company (or any other company) will bear the brunt of the taxes.

when someone dies the man's estate pays taxes, if there are any due.

you clearly don't want this tax to disappear so perhaps you should understand a bit more about it.

for example, the richest of the rich have most of their money in family trusts that skirt the tax issues. Carnegie, Rockefeller et al have family trusts that run in perpetuity, forever skirting the issue. Homes are purchased by trusts, not by individuals. Why? To avoid losing assets in divorces or lawsuits and, of course, to protect against estate taxes.

Those rich folk with assets in their own names often set up foundations in their own name and then donate the bulk of their assets to the foundation, reducing their taxable estate to almost nil. Then their will dictates that their family members are to be on the board of said foundatin for XXX amount of dollars a year. The foundation gives away 5% of the assets a year.

While I don't think the estate tax should be completely eradicated, I do think that all these people who whine about this being another case of the rich getting richer should get a clearer picture of how their money works for them. They usually have the very best lawyers money can buy and these lawyers set up their estates so that the tax bit is as painless as possible. The folks I see getting hurt the most by the estate taxes are those with nominal cash and stock assets but larger pensions and, more important, real estate holdings that have increased thanks to the boom in prices. I had a client die last year who owned a small building in brooklyn (he bought it in the 70's for nothing) and a large pension and a small amount of cash. the building had to be sold to pay the taxes and the lawyers and accountants. the pension passes outright to the beneficiary. The remaining estate was distributed to a few of his friends and family. The total estate was close to ten million. his former partner received well over a million in pension money. the remaining beneficiaries might get $50 -$75,000 apiece. That's peanuts on an estate of that size.

The estate tax laws should not be eradicated completely. Given the new levels of accumulated wealth and the increasing values of real estate, the floor on assets should be raised to at least $50 million, maybe even higher.

They should be reworking all the tax code to reflect these increases.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
~the 'Quote' button isn't working ...~

I wished to quote Crakeur, maybe it was the next to last sentence...
with the words [wealth] and [appreciated real-estate values]
and how a "Estate Tax" with a starting min. of $50mil or more should still persist in the IRS rule-book into this 21st century.

Thanks, for your well worded & needed....amplification, concerning the Estate Tax
(aka; transfer of wealth OR negating the 'dynasty' models found in europe)

~~~~~

the gut response, might well be 'this favors the rich!'
& that might have some basis, & some good arguing points...

But the ultimate reason for repeal or dismantling the Estate Tax is to 'restructure'
the US economy...
with 'amnesty' for the 10-40 million people who migrated 'illegally' into the USA
there exists a need for the fiat USD (aka; world currency) to have a much larger/grander Float and be acclaimed 'trusted' etc. etc.

Its really a convoluted & twisting path to explain the nuiances...
all i can say is investigate for yourself.
i only could point the light in the right direction
(like Crakeur did in his/her earlier reply)



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I say get rid of the Estate Tax, it puts an undue burden on farmers & ranchers. Land prices have gone up and up over the years making many ordinary farmers & ranchers millionairs--at least on paper. The Estate Tax puts so much in the way of liabilities on the estate that a family cannot afford to remain on their farm or ranch after the death of their parents. As a consequence, farms & ranches are being broken up and sold off just to pay that tax burden.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Lets get ride of the estate tax and the senate...................


Why do the "challenged" scream about the 10 cents per gallon the oil companies get and ignore the 60 cent per gallon in TAXES?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
there are so many "easier" ways to bring in tax dollars without crushing the masses with more burden. I put quotes around easier because the concept is definitely easier but implementing the methods depends on the same honesty we currently rely on in our current system.

concept #1. federal tax on all internet sales. I know, you scream unfair. The rich don't shop on the internet so they get away with another break. One cent on all transactions. Maybe 2 cents. I am unsure as to the number of sales made by US companies daily but I am guessing the penny would be a decent windfall of money and nobody is going to be upset over another penny in the sale.

concept #2. same thing with all brick and mortar sales over ten or even $100.


Yes, we are relying on the merchants to be honest with this but we are already relying on the merchants' honesty with regards to local sales tax and corporate income taxes.


I'm fairly sure the combination of these 2 penny per transaction sales would give the gov't enough money to wreak havoc worldwide and still have coin left over for such unnecessary things as education and infrastructure.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
I'm fairly sure the combination of these 2 penny per transaction sales would give the gov't enough money to wreak havoc worldwide and still have coin left over for such unnecessary things as education and infrastructure.


I did not attempt to evaluate your tax proposal as I think that's the subject of a different thread; however, I do want to take exception to the sentence above. Education is probably the best investment this country could possibly make with respect to the future prosperity & well-being of the country. Universal, mandatory education got us to where we are and I don't want to see people downplaying that fact. Secondly, infrastructure (roads, parks, hospitals, dams, canals, schools, etc.) are basic things any country needs to be successful. Neglect of infrastructure expansion & maintenance has caused the downfall of many communities. Far from being unnecessary, infrastructure is vital to the health, well-being & growth of this country.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
astronomer, please reread my quote and you will see that I make reference to wreaking havoc around the world first. that was meant as humor. the "unnecessary" expenditures was sarcasm.

in other words, I was mocking the way we currently waste our dollars and suggesting we do otherwise.

if only there was a sarcasm font.

SO, you are the tech guru here, I am demanding a sarcasm font.

thank you in advance for inventing this for me.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Sorry Crakeur, I totally missed your intent with that comment--my bad.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
First off, farms lost to the Death Tax(AKA Estate Tax)...are a myth made up by the Extremist Right wing PNAC style leaders.


Link to Federal Taxation of Inheritance and Wealth Transfers
Barry W. Johnson and Martha Britton Eller, Internal Revenue Service

The idea that inheritance was a “natural right” was
refuted nearly a century later by English jurist William
Blackstone. In his 1769 Commentaries on the Law of
England, Blackstone wrote that possession of property
ended with the death of its owner and, thus, there was
no natural right to bequeath property to successive generations.
Therefore, any right to control the disposition
of property after death was granted by civil law--not by
natural law--primarily to prevent undue economic disturbances.
www.irs.gov...


Here we have a Philosophical reasoning behind why we have a death tax and why property rights after death are not Natural Rights...a point to which I personally ascribe.



Link to Federal Taxation of Inheritance and Wealth Transfers
Barry W. Johnson and Martha Britton Eller, Internal Revenue Service

Taxation of property transfers at death can be traced
back to ancient Egypt as early as 700 B.C. (Paul, 1954).
Nearly 2,000 years ago, Roman Emperor Caesar
Augustus imposed the Vicesina Hereditatium, a tax on
successions and legacies to all but close relatives (Smith,
1913). Taxes imposed at the death of a family member
were quite common in feudal Europe, often amounting
to a family’s annual property rent. By the 18th century,
stamp duties and registration fees on wills, inventories,
and other documents related to property transfers at death
had been adopted by many nations.

www.irs.gov...


Here we have historical evidence of the Idea of a Death Tax. These kinds of Taxes have been a primary source of revenue in many cultures and on nearly every continent. To remove the death tax will not save farmers farms because they aren't losing farms to farmers...the farmers are being bought out by coporations and the new domain laws....not to mention the fact that how many farmers farms are worth more than 2 million dollars....thats just land....not equipment and such because that falls under a different category in US tax law.

The farmers sob story is a myth proported by those whose wealth they want to keep centralized within thier own cirlces so as to shape and guide things as they see fit even beyond the grave.




Link to Federal Taxation of Inheritance and Wealth Transfers
Barry W. Johnson and Martha Britton Eller, Internal Revenue Service

For most of the 20th century and at key points
throughout American history, the Federal government
has relied on estate and inheritance taxes as sources of
funding. The modern transfer tax system, introduced in
1916, provides revenue to the Federal government
through taxes on transfers of property between living
individuals--inter vivos transfers--as well as through a
tax on transfers of property at death. Proponents of
transfer taxation embrace it both as a “fair” source of
revenue and as an effective tool for preventing the concentration
of wealth in the hands of a few powerful families.

www.irs.gov...



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
The Best thing they could ever do is get rid of that stupid tax.

Sure the rich get richer but so does the little man. Ever see someone leave an estate of a several million to a middle income family? I have and what I saw was tons of money go the the government rather then the relatives as it should have



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Hears a little more Info on the tax.

illinoisestateplan.com...

If I rember right the cut off is 675000. Some one menchened that they have seen a 2 million estate, I am happy for all who have assets of 675000 and more. But no one in my family has any where near that and it is more then I will ever see in my lifetime. So that makes me say this is something that will only help the rich.
I do hope the statesmen are smart enuff to shoot this down again.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
First off, why call conservatives "Trailer park rightwingers"? not polite at all, rather rude actually
The reason why the average joe (or trailer trash to you?) would want the estate tax apealed, at least for anyone who makes under 150k a year is because the government steals the money you would want your children to have. The reason the estate tax (death tax) was created was so that families dont over time create power through passed down fortunes. How ever when you look at Kenedys, Bush, and Rockefellers to name a few, family dynastys are still created even here in America. When you have enough money you can affoard to circumnavigate the system.
But for the average guy, like me (I'm one of those trailer trash folks) whos father made 50k a year or so, I think I should have his savings and property. What gives the government the right to steal from my dead father what he left me? None thats what, they can keep their greedy hands off the little guy! I'm all for taxing the hell out of billionairs because, like the Hiltons for example, Paris Hilton is a family heir to her families fortunes. While my fathers death will be celebrated by the government, for they stole his money, and left my with hardly anything to by split with my familt, fools like Paris Hilton will still be billionairs even after the government takes what the can from them.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
But no one in my family has any where near that and it is more then I will ever see in my lifetime.


You would be surprised someday you may find yourself with more then that if you save and invest correctly. To say you will never have that much is like saying I am going to work at only one place in my life which we all know is not the case. Better jobs come along and we move on as we move on we move up and so does our income and estates.

In other words you have to look outside the box not just in it.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Sure the rich get richer but so does the little man. Ever see someone leave an estate of a several million to a middle income family? I have and what I saw was tons of money go the the government rather then the relatives as it should have




exactly my point. the middle income family who doesn't fully understand the total value of their estate (doesn't realize how much the house is worth) doesn't have the best planning and when the second spouse dies, the estate gets taxed and the smith family house is sold to cover the taxes resulting in the kids losing their childhood home and half the value of the estate. These are the people most hurt by the estate tax. They often don't even have proper wills drawn up and that results in probate and that costs money too and the lawyers make out like bandits.

I can promise you Bill Gates, who's worth billions, probably has an incredibly well planned out will and estate plan. If he dies he can easily pass everything to his wife tax free but then he risks the potential for his wife to remarry and leave everything to someone else. To avoid this he sets up trusts now, foundations etc. and pays minimal tax when he dies.

Another way the super rich get around the estate tax issue is by obtaining life insurance. Does a man worth 3 billion dollars need life insurance? Nope. What purpose would it serve? He can give everyone in the US some money with his estate. Life insurance might be purchased with the intention of using the insurance proceeds to pay the taxes.

Example: man has assets worth 200 million. His lawyers work up an estate plan that shelters everything but ten million dollars. The taxes on that are, roughly, 5 million dollars (yup 50%). He takes out a 5 million dollar insurance policy. He dies and the ten million is passed along to whomever he wanted (remember the other 190 million are already accounted for in the estate plan - trusts, family limited partnerships etc) and the tax bill is covered by his insurance. A 5 million dollar policy is expensive. A 2 million dollar policy for a 37 year old with relatively good health (just under the top level) is around $2500 a year. For someone in their 50's, someone who is reworking their estate planning to take the new laws and the new assets (higher valued real estate) is going to be stuck paying a hell of a lot more than that for a 5 million dollar policy. It is not affordable for many. For the super rich it is nothing. Once again, the middle income man suffers.


Repealing the estate tax laws effectively hurts one entity. The gov't.
It will also have one benefit for the gov't. They won't be forced to face the issue of same sex marriages. One of the key issues for same sex couples who have accumulated joint holdings over a long relationship is that, when one dies, they cannot, under the current laws, pass their holdings to their partner, free of tax like married couple can. so a gay man, who owned his apartment jointly with his partner, for 30 years, and who has several million dollars in pensions and investments, cannot pass his estate on to his partner free of tax yet a man who was married for a month before dying can pass his estate tax free to the lucky woman who said I do on a whim.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by RedGolem
But no one in my family has any where near that and it is more then I will ever see in my lifetime.


You would be surprised someday you may find yourself with more then that if you save and invest correctly. To say you will never have that much is like saying I am going to work at only one place in my life which we all know is not the case. Better jobs come along and we move on as we move on we move up and so does our income and estates.

In other words you have to look outside the box not just in it.


Shots,
When I say it is more then I will ever see I was being reaistic. I know things change, and I have been through a lot of that change, some good some bad. But I do have every desire to stay in one job for my life. I say that because I am not rich, I half to work for a liveing. I would really like to have enuff of an estate for the Gov to tax, it just has not happened yet.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
When I say it is more then I will ever see I was being realistic. I know things change, and I have been through a lot of that change, some good some bad. But I do have every desire to stay in one job for my life. I say that because I am not rich, I half to work for a living.


That is because you are only looking inside the box and not what is available outside. Don't get me wrong I know where you are coming from at one time I felt the very same. There were times when I thought I would remain on the same job, but as things changed so did I. My job changed not a lot but a few times and each time it was for the better. In the end I actually stayed with one company for 30 years enough to take an early retirement on because of perks they offered, I might add. During those thirty years my wife also worked and we managed to save money and we invested it on a few things.

Once I bought 6 acres of land for 1,000 that was a lot of money back then. I had plans on building a new home on, but it never happened because we moved to a better area after a jerk moved in next store and made life hell for everyone in the neighborhood.

Well to make a long story short, they wanted to build a fancy up scale subdivision adjacent to those 6 acres and I split them into 6 parcels and sold them for over 100k each. Now that is a pretty hefty return on my original investment. I never planned it that way but it happened.

I am not trying to make myself out to be more then I am here; I am simpled showing that if it could happen to me it could happen to you. Once again always think outside the box and not just in.

The sad part of this whole issue is if they retain this stupid tax my relatives stand to loose a sizable piece of change because good Old uncle Sam will take it away from them. That is why I am for doing away with it.

[edit on 6/1/2006 by shots]

[edit on 6/1/2006 by shots]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Shots,
I do bid you congradulations your your real estate investment

And thanks for saying that it could happen to any body. If something like that had ever happened to any one in my family, I just might agree with you. And as to the estate tax, you can had your capital the same was any other rich person can. hide might or might not be the correct word to use but its not all that hard to do.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
And as to the estate tax, you can had your capital the same was any other rich person can. hide might or might not be the correct word to use but its not all that hard to do.


I realize that, but one would not have to go through all that if we did not have the stupid tax to start. Those lawyer fees to set up trusts are not cheap yah know, which means that in addition to the stupid tax one also has to pay a good lawyer to draw up the accounts to protect it legally.

The best thing to do is just eliminate the stupid tax then you save money on both the taxes and lawyers



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
The estate tax is a voluntary tax.

If you plan properly, the effects of it can be totally avoided to your heirs. You would be surprised at some of the situations that are out there. Sure the Mega wealthy (15M and up) benefit greatly from proper planning. They have done so for centuries now and still will Estate tax or not.
So do families like the person who owns two pieces of property worth 3.4M and has another 600K or so of assets. Is he rich? Ask him and he will say no. He leads a modest life and has made wise choices during it, buying some nice lakefront property back when the prices were reasonable. If there is no planning done, his children will lose probably at least 20-25% if not more of their fathers estate, since they will have to sell one of the properties at fire sale prices to cover the estate tax that was not properly planned for. That is just taking into account the Federal estate tax not to mention the State Death or Estate tax. Everybody gets their pound of flesh if no planning is done ahead of time.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join