It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Your momma and daddy may have to give away much of your inheritance to someone else

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 01:00 AM
One way to avoid this is to create a holdings company that owns all your investments in separate different sub-companies, owned by the holdings company, then sign your kids on to the company as part owners , before you pass you set the kids up as the new owners of the corporation. They collect your investments as if it were their own. And there's more loopholes to lower tax burden when they collect the earnings. Like create a new holdings in a low corporate tax rate country and collect the money from there ? Avoid taxes all together like apple or Google.

Who , who has any real wealth just passes on their assets to their kids without asset protection ? This law is only gonna screw those middle class who say have one piece of land they own that they want to pass on. Might be taxed so hard the inhertor will have to just sell it .... To who? Guess? The even richer guy who's about to even more richer off your lack of knowledge

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 04:35 AM
a reply to: Dryad2
Political double speak, Tax the rich usually means hit the middle class with higher taxes as it is usually the middle classes that end up paying these taxes. The agender is always the same to keep most of the population as poor (relatively speaking ) slaves. The fairy storey as always is that the poor are going to be helped but the financial assistance that the poor recieve is usually very meager, no where near what is originally promised and only a fraction of the amount that is actually collected. The winners as always is the banks, the government and all thier associated parties. Every time that obama talks about tax increases all those businesses that rely on government money must jump for joy.

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 06:45 AM
a reply to: randomtangentsrme
Definitely, Create a Generation Skipping Trust (in name only; ask your tax lawyer) and turn your money into an investment company against which your heirs will borrow against while you retain .001% ownership. Now that is legally an family owned investment company, according to the I.R.S.'s own rules and loophole, when the company is valued upon your demise the discount rate of up to 34% can be applied. Since you died, the kids tear up your note and pay no inheritance tax since the taxes were incurred and literally paid by the parent. The tax liability is based on what the financial standing (or picture) was on the day you die. Thus skipping a generation, hence a generation skipping trust.
This is basically a gross simplification but our family did it and I inherited a huge sum of money virtually tax free. Consult a very knowledgeable tax attorney and a C.P.A. to show you how to set it up. The money is usually placed in the form of mutual funds and dividend stocks during that time and the money can be redistributed to the kids or reinvested and normal Capital gains rates will apply.

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 07:13 AM
a reply to: pl3bscheese

have you ever had a garden?? We've been trying for a few years no with very little success. It's not as easy as it seems but well we learn a little more every year.

But ya know what? I have never been to most of the restuarants in my city so I don't benefit from the labor of those working at those businesses. I have never been in most of the stores so so the same goes for them!
So why is this family shelling out tax money that is being used to feed these people? We've never met them even..

Meanwhile there are those who are on your kid's school buses everyday ensuring those kids are safely in their seats and not distracting the driver so he can get them to the school or home safely. I know of some bus drivers that need gov't assistance so I imagine most of the aides are on those programs also!

And how do you like those nifty little automatic self service checkouts at the grocery store?? Still can't figure out how you are supposed to pay with cash so I kind of avoid the things. Stopped going to one store because well I do my grocery shopping early in the morning and that was the only way to cash out!

Office clerks?? I could go on and on!

I wouldn't know the ceo of my favorite grocery store chain if I met him but I know many of the people working in the store I go to. I care about them! Would be rather sad if they all starved to death while that ceo raked in enough money to take care of six of their families!

Should the higher skill sets get paid more money? of course!
But before they get another raise maybe the businesses need to start thinking about their responsibities to all their employees??
Because any job that requires a living breathing person to do it is worth the amount of money to keep that person living and breathing after working 40 hours! Skilled or unskilled.

And by rejecting that idea all we are doing is making the young people think that if they want to be able to live in our world they have to take out a bunch of loans for college and training and if they all did that well they would either find that there isn't enough skilled jobs available for them all or if by some miracle there would be enough well who is gonna serve you at your favorite restaurant or drive your kid to school or cash your groceries out at the store?? Heck who's gonna be stocking those groceries onto the shelves at the store??

If those who are lucky enough to earn the kind of income to be considered well off see those under them as not deserving of a wage that they can actually live on forcing them to be dependent on those gov't assistance programs they claim are robbing them of their money then I don't feel sorry for them one bit when the gov't finds the need to take more money from them to filter through their system to give those under them what they would lack if they depended solely on the money they could earn! Sorry that is just the way it is. What are they supposed to take if from those of our income range?? Sorry but that would probably put us out on the street or in line for the gov't handouts ourselves.

Tax those who benefit from this screwed up system not those that have been going month to month by the skin of their teeth for years while watching the gov't take more and more money from them always with some excuse that is usually related to the poor and destitute..
They are the ones who have made them poor and destitute and a burden on the system to begin with.

Oh and by the way when the student loan bubble pops it's gonna be a biggie!

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 08:38 AM
Could it be were missing the point here ? of Who is perpetrating this Theft... ? That is what it is, pure and simple..... stealing some ones hard earned life's work spent Saving for their families future. Being poor and shiftless is a life choice, just as deciding to better your conditions is a life choice. Choosing the path of least resistance and leisure, at the expense of everybody else is basic dishonesty. 0bama is quite adept at spending 'other peoples money', and seems to think (his ideology) redistribution is the privilege given him exclusively.

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 08:56 AM
I see the thought process behind this. And I agree at some level. Honestly.

Let's say, an 18 year old kid grew up rich, parents died, leaving him/her the money. What does this give them? No worries? Sure, sure. No doubt about it. Food in their belly? I would say so. Roof over their head? Yeah.

But do they learn responsibility? Do they learn what it means to struggle, to be thankful for the things you have? Maybe. But also, maybe not.

I don't like the idea of the government taking it though. It should go to where the parents want it to go. It's their money to do with as they wish.

However, I would like to see a graduated access to it. Meaning, you get some when you are young, spread out over time and the rest when you reach retirement age. Or something like that. But, just handing an 18 year old millions of dollars, is just asking for another spoiled brat.

IMO anyways.

But barring that unlikely scenario, then I say it's whatever the parents wanted to do with it. They did already pay taxes on it during their lives. So it should be free and clear to the children.

It's not the government's money.

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 11:47 AM
I think what most fail to realize this only applies to someone who inherits a large amount of money, then only a portion of the inheritance is taxed.

Also those who are opposed to this and vocal about their opinion also fail to realize that the medical system as it stands, often eats up a person's wealth when they get old and need constant medical care. The medical establishment is doing one hell of a job in taking away the middle class's inheritance.

In the last year or so of my Grandmother's life, she racked up close to $500,000 in medical expenses and a good portion was not covered by medicare. When her bank account was empty, she was put on hospice care where she was in a narcotic induced coma for 2 weeks while being starved before she passed away. She died penniless, after having over 1 million is cash and assets at the time she retired. My mother is still getting hospital bills in the mail for her.

This is what is happening all over the US. The middle class who saved a little money, essentially get it taken away late in life by our joke of a medical system.

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 11:56 AM

originally posted by: queenofswords

This man calls it "The Trust Fund Loophole" and tries to make you feel like a total loser and deadbeat if your parents wanted you and your children to have access to all the wealth they accumulated over the years.

There is way too much spin in this OP to unwind, but I will at least point this bit out..

It is not the President who called this the "Trust Fund Loop Hole" is what it is called.

See Forbes celebrating the loop-hole in 2010..

Tax Deal Trust Fund Loophole Could Save Billions For Rich

If the Senate-passed Obama-Republican tax deal clears the House in its current form, rich families will have until Dec. 31 to save billions in Generation Skipping Transfer Tax on money already sitting in trust funds. Noted estate planning lawyer Jonathan Blattmachr, a retired partner of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, says he’s been telling his peers: “Cancel your ski trip or trip to Hawaii. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity.”

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 03:56 PM

originally posted by: AbbaCabba
I honestly do not feel it is right to take what someone else has earned. I am somewhat wealthy myself, but I am also very generous. I do however feel that there are families such as the Waltons that are greedy and abuse the system. Unfortunately due to their business model the government needs to foot the bill for the remaining needs of many of Walmart's employees. The brunt of those expenses are absorbed by the middle class. The group of people that are the driving force of our economy. Let's face it here, the laws and loopholes are set to give advantage to the extremely wealthy. The American Dream only still exists for the lucky few whom actually make it, or the ones already born in. Until corporate and personal greed are a thing of the past, something needs to be done to stop the stockpiling of wealth. How someone can horde so much when so many struggles to keep the basic necessities? When do these people realize that they have enough?

No one cares if loopholes are closed or laws that allow "the rich" to cheat are fixed. I have no problem with that as long as the same laws apply to everyone (eg. fair and equal). What I have a problem with is taxing anyone differently than another person. Fair and equal still mean the same thing the did before...the same treatment of every regardless of age, race, religion...or wealth. So why isn't this administration trying to change the laws and close the loopholes? Why are they trying to push a $300 billion tax instead? Simple. There is money they want to TAKE. There isn't money they want "coming in as part of regular taxes" otherwise closing the loopholes would be fine. What they want is to immediately steal from "certain people". In this case...wealthy (to be defined later).

I'm against this because of a simple observation. If Obama won't fix the problem and instead chooses to literally steal by discriminating against a certain group of American citizens...that is wrong.
edit on 1/20/2015 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 09:16 PM
a reply to: dawnstar

Hello there dawnstar

I have had gardens for quite some time. As a child we had small herb gardens. There's definitely something to be said for having a "green thumb". My brother has a bit more luck in this department, but I seem to fair pretty good.

Well there's a lot of things at play, and you touch on quite a few. I'm glad you have. So as far as the corporations becoming larger, and in effect pushing out mom and pop shops, that has happened; however there has been a bit of a resurgence with low-overhead online commerce in the last decade. Some departments have been revolutionized by small businesses. Overall the trend has been to become larger and larger corporate conglomerates, and with that social values held dearly in previous times are diminishing.

You speak of the continued automation, and loss of jobs to technology with the automated check-out lines. I shamelessly use them. Human beings err, and can be too slow, but the machines overall are more efficient. I'm fully aware this takes away from a job that could feed a family. My view is that we should not be willing to stop "progress" in order for those least capable to continue to have a reason to exist. This view is biased within the current social contract. That holds people are worthy so long as they can perform a "job". We are fast coming to a point where this social contract must be re-evaluated. If the technology affords us all to have basic needs met, then we should be free to choose in what way we may benefit society, with more relaxed terms, else if not having much utility, be allowed to be as they are in peace. If we do not look at this social issue before the technology pushes a sufficient amount out of the workforce, other plans will be made for said individuals. I'd rather not go down that road.

The student loan will implode perhaps after the next housing crisis, which is already being engineered for this cycle. It will be a "biggie" though I think some sort of reset must be allowed to play through, else that road I'd rather not go down... might be the only path in sight.

So if you take in that block of the poor & lower middle class being strangled in a sense, by their own ignorance, and then look at the block of the ubber rich with such excesses, how does it not make sense to level the playing field to some degree? We can either allow this to play through by running with assumptions that no longer are best, else can choose to be at least a little bit pro-active and take a different path. If we keep latching on to ridiculous beliefs after the terrain has drastically changed, we will set up the stage for too many frustrations to contain civilly.

The main problem I see is that nobody can clearly see through all the distractions, and complexities that the system has become, and throws out in every which way. So it's easy for someone to latch onto one position, and vehemently oppose others. This goes for all the main sides. They fight each other while a few laugh their way to the bank, then off shore after the chaos ensues. I'm solution oriented, and a system's thinker. Whatever will work, I'm for. What works depends on what we value. We have to decide our values, and then go about that, but to form our values from within the current system, would not be wise. It would only perpetuate more versions of the same thing.

I don't know if any of this makes sense, but hope it does. Not sure why I bother anymore. The cause seems lost. We are too confused, and stuck in our beliefs, formed before the current world you see around you came to be.

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 09:56 PM
a reply to: Redhead6971

The combination of government and the most wealthy people helping the less fortunate is one theory thats always bothered me and can always be expected from these people and their endless mission for profit like most lies and garbage that goes along with it to decieve for the purpose of staying wealthy and continue to produce profit for the rest of their lives to eventually hand over their inheritance to someone else AND get to repeat this all over. For example, one their family members or someone else gets their business or inheritance and gets to continue remain in this circle of greed, deception and continue making profit and the rest will forever continue to unravel the mystery they call the stock system. To them we're the equivalent of a dog. Your money is whats important to them and unless you have it, you're invisible like most underneath their level wealth. Healthy nutrition, diet and living is something anyone with a single brain cell would encourage but unfortunately most cant afford because they have no money to and are forced to eat whatever they can. I'm ok with my low nutrition foods and buy whats cheap because i have no choice. Not everyone has a choice and wealth is something either giver or earned, which is fine by me because of the choices i've made and dont have and cant afford the education i need become wealthy and never did. A dog has a master and the master cares for the dog and when the dog is in need of the master he usually runs up to the master or barks to let the master know hes in need, at which point the master responds to dog. When a dog needs to be walked the master complies because care for the dog. It's a similar situation between wealthy business owners and low income ones( except the part how the master cares for the dog )because the time when you gain wealth or the slightest bit success is the time when they swarm in on you for profit, which they wouldn't have done unless for that particular purpose being profit and would've, like i said, avoided anyone they cant make profit from and to the wealthy you become and are invisible dog. Complex wealth system and involvement government isn't something i ever plan on taking serious and encourage ones who have a chance get educated, success will follow without a doubt, nevermind the expected difficulty along the way but every road has end, being overall success in life but only if you never decide give up.

edit on 20-1-2015 by gorf2 because: because

edit on 20-1-2015 by gorf2 because: minor correction

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 02:04 AM
a reply to: diggindirt

OK DD, I was trying to stay quiet on this one but I must just say that a "burger jock" can hardly be compared to a "trust fund baby". Especially to say that they had the same education opportunities. Do you think flipping burgers is going to put you through Harvard with the same ease as simply writing a check from the ole trust fund? People who worked hard for what they have arent even under scrutiny in this conversation. I'm not saying I agree with the inheritance tax thing but some of you might do well to remember who you are talking about when you throw out some of these terms like losers, freeloaders, I believe I even saw "rats" coined to profile the "lazy money takers". With this attitude toward the "lessers" you are only showing your ass and making me wish someone would take all your money not just enuff to make you slightly less wealthy. Please remember these people might be your neighbors, your friends (though I doubt you would rub elbows with that type of "scum") and quite possibly your own family (whom I would guess you would leave in the streets to rummage through the garbage with the other "rats"). Also when the 40 hour workweek was mentioned it was not proposed it would make you wealthy just comfortable. Maybe we should work an extra 20 for free to show our corporate masters how grateful we are to be living in any kind of comfort at all. Not!!

edit on 21-1-2015 by regor77 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 02:22 AM

originally posted by: queenofswords
Let's discuss the fairness of this type of wealth redistribution.

I would say the wealth already gets redistributed. This is about letting more of the wealth trickle back to those who are getting paid less, but (ideally) still working their butts off and producing (and their efforts make others rich).

In any case, so far as I know, revenues from estate tax are their lowest levels in some decades (probably in a century).

"Your momma and daddy may have to give away much of your inheritance to someone else"

I don't think they've accumulated enough to fall under this new proposal. But if you have more specifics on the marginal rates I'd be happy to read them.

I don't think they've accumulated enough to fall under this new proposal. But if you have more specifics on the marginal rates I'd be happy to read them.

edit on 21-1-2015 by Phallacy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 02:25 AM
a reply to: pl3bscheese

My family on both sides are farmers. I believe you could do it but dont discount the effort that goes into bringing in your crop. All that still farm in my family went to college for agricultural studies as well. Yep, full degrees. Also they put in 60-80 plus hours on a regular workweek. You need to know when to rotate crops so as not to end up with fallow ground. Really there is 7 or 8 generations of combined knowlege (the real trust fund) in each family. Not exactly flipping burgers which by the way I also believe you could do.

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 05:24 AM
a reply to: pl3bscheese

please don't give up if this post is any indication you are one of the few on these boards that make sense.
my problem with the automatic checkouts is that I like to deal with cash. It's not as easily determined just what the money was spent on---family issues at play here.

I believe that over 50% of our kids now eat with the assistance of food stamps. And there's a rather large number of people who would be working if they could only land a job. And well some like me who decided that is we just downsized and cut our expenses (and family size) well we both don't need to work and at the rate of pay I was making it wasn't worth the chaos and crap that me giving 40 hours of my week to an employer who didn't value me enough to ensure that I would return tomorrow by paying me enough to have my needs met.. It seems kind of ludicrous to me that we should have all this untapped labor on standby while another group is working 40-60 hours a week trying to make ends meet. And then we just take from those who are working to give to the ones on standby. Would seem more logical to me that we could find a way to allow them all to work less hours. I mean the same amount of money is going to feed and shelter everyone as it is now. It would just be a matter of rearranging the numbers some and the way the money is distributed. Heck who knows maybe if the gov't would have quit spending so much of our money on crap no one really cares about anyways we could all earn enough on working a 30 hour week!
But as far as the employers paying these crappy low wages, I wish they would realize that it costs more overall for that money to be funneled through the welfare system than it would if they would just pay them a decent wage since instead of having an army of workers distributing that money they'd only need people to take care of the elderly and handicapped. That's assuming that everyone that could and needed to work had a decent paying job.

You're right the whole system needs to be rethought and redeveloped.

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:44 AM
I love the age old story of the ant and the grasshopper playing out in real life.

Thing of it is, if you remove the incentive to better your position and give a leg up to your family; then why should a person better themselves through hard work?

It isn't charity if you do not have a choice in contribution nor input as to how the money is spent. Many of this nation's wealthiest people built public libraries, gave to hospitals and universities and other public works for the benefit and growth of others. Funny how that is only really done today through foundations since the income tax was enacted in the 1930's. But I digress. When and only when I see Pelosi, Reid and other career politicians getting hit will I support it.

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 03:49 PM
a reply to: regor77
Our family doesn't have any trust fund babies so the "kids" (actually now in their mid-20s) in our family didn't have that option. I was speaking of people I know directly---watched them make the poor decisions that led them to being burger jocks. They and their cousins had exactly the same opportunities because they were from household of similar socio-economic backgrounds---middle-class working families. The ones who used their teen years to apply themselves to working hard in school and in after school jobs to establish a resume went on to college on scholarships due to their hard work. They had the discipline to do what it took to accomplish their goals and they had the willpower to resist going head over heels in debt for the latest gadget or vehicle.
The ones who squandered their opportunity to get further skills from education are the ones complaining about how hard life has treated them despite the fact that they spent the money they could have used to further improve themselves on silly e-gadgets and vehicles.
So I ask you---is it fair for the ones who put in the hours, got up, went to work, then to class, then to job interviews and then to the job---on time, every day---to be forced to subsidize the lazy ones who can't be bothered to do a bit more work to make up for their earlier poor decisions? If you believe this is "fair"---just how much of their income should they be required to hand over to their lazy burger-jock cousins? Would 10% of their income be enough? How about 30% of their wages to those who spend most of their time checking social media or playing video games on Mom's couch? Or should it be my generation who is subsidizing them--- those of us who have already paid for our children's education and lived frugally so that we have a small nest egg for our retirement years? How much would be "enough" for us to give up so these layabouts can have their wishes fulfilled?
And yes, I was once young and stupid where finances are concerned---back during the Carter administration when interest rates were seriously painful. It would have been far easier to give up, declare bankruptcy and go on public assistance but that wasn't the way I was raised. Yes, it took working more than 40 hours a week to pay for my stupidity and yes, it was hard but nobody ever promised me the moon. Working three jobs isn't fun but sometimes it is necessary to retain one's dignity and sense of self-worth.

edit on 21-1-2015 by diggindirt because: spelling

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 05:12 PM
a reply to: diggindirt

Wake up man, the middle class is already paying 30%+ in taxes. The wealthiest often pay around 15%.....

Not sure what your rant was about, but it the typical regurgitated message that so many on this thread seem to chant.

I will admit, very few Americans actually know what hard work is. Maybe if hard work was still valued like it was, the average worker would be motivated to work a little harder.

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 05:20 PM
a reply to: [post=18906579]diggindirt[/po I will let you know if this inheritance tax affects the middle class or not as I am going through just such a situation right now concerning mineral rights in North Dakota. Also I am a middle class individual myself tho probably on the lower spectrum of it. The bulk of my families farm land wealth was already squandered by my (severely) republican step father in less than one year to the tune of 300 thousand or so. He must have known he was about to die so he partied like it was 1999 with our inheritances already. Typical of the boomers IMO. Glad he couldnt sell the mineral rights too or there would be nothing. Frankly, I dont care about this tax. I just wish the rhetoric could be toned down a notch because people get pretty rude and kinda show who they really are when money is the subject. I see you now.

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 05:26 PM
None of this garbage is for the middle class. Liberals despise the middle class. Middle class people are too comfortable to get emotionally caught up in liberal propaganda. There is no middle class in totalitarian Marxism.

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in