Illegal aliens a Social Security boon

[lookout123]

that's kinda the point BigV - i don't believe there should be an estate tax at all. so i am asking the folks who support one, what is the cut off? who gets to give up 40% and who gets to keep it all? it goes back to the same question i've asked before when talking about income taxes - what number defines "wealthy"? people don't seem to realize that the numbers you used to define wealthy when bitching about the rich are found in your own neighborhoods.

the truly wealthy people (i'm not talking about iconic wealth like the hiltons)live in middle class neighborhoods, drive sensible cars, wear sensible clothes, work 50-60 hours week, drink beer and play in the side yard with their kids just like you do. if you don't believe it, look up the statistics for location of millionaires in your area. most of them don't live in the most glamorous neighborhoods and drive BMW's. (most popular milionaire car? used camry)

it is just a feature of politrix that gets us to point our fingers at those "wealthy" people who never have to mingle with the likes of us. one of the wealthiest guys i know is a damn letter carrier for the USPS, for crying out loud! he took the ant and the grasshopper story to heart and lives it. one of the most cashstrapped desperate fools i know has a hummer and a $1.3MM home. go figure.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by lookout123

that's kinda the point BigV - i don't believe there should be an estate tax at all. so i am asking the folks who support one, what is the cut off?

Ok, you found one, I do support it.

Originally Posted by lookout123

who gets to give up 40%

Paris Hilton's daddy.

Originally Posted by lookout123

and who gets to keep it all?

Small estates.

Ok, you're looking for a number, right? Why not have a sliding scale? Something like mutiples of our income tax brackets? Some Median income times 2x or 3x is the floor, and then in chunks moving upward from there?

Originally Posted by lookout123

it goes back to the same question i've asked before when talking about income taxes - what number defines "wealthy"? people don't seem to realize that the numbers you used to define wealthy when bitching about the rich are found in your own neighborhoods.

the truly wealthy people (i'm not talking about iconic wealth like the hiltons)live in middle class neighborhoods, drive sensible cars, wear sensible clothes, work 50-60 hours week, drink beer and play in the side yard with their kids just like you do. if you don't believe it, look up the statistics for location of millionaires in your area. most of them don't live in the most glamorous neighborhoods and drive BMW's. (most popular milionaire car? used camry)

Ok, I accept that there might be some modest people in my area that have large assets. Ok. Your point? That they're stand up people, who are involved in the community, that they care about their families, that getting things done ranks ahead of showing off? Yeah, so what? Is that exclusive somehow of wanting to pay their fair share?

I heard another thing that seems relevant here--

It's not about equal giving, it's about equal sacrifice.

Yes, sacrifice. Many people are doing it, and it's NOT equally shared, nor are the benefits of those sacrifices equally shared. That is unfair.

Originally Posted by lookout123

it is just a feature of politrix that gets us to point our fingers at those "wealthy" people who never have to mingle with the likes of us. one of the wealthiest guys i know is a damn letter carrier for the USPS, for crying out loud! he took the ant and the grasshopper story to heart and lives it. one of the most cashstrapped desperate fools i know has a hummer and a $1.3MM home. go figure.

So you're saying that "wealthy" isn't what shows, right? I agree with that. Wealthy is more than a figure on a balance sheet. Yes, money and material possesions are part of the equation, but no amount of money, regardless of how it's spent or saved is enough to create the comfort and security of real wealth. Only a state of mind can complete the picture. A state of mind of contentment, that realizes sufficiency.

You aptly point out that the millionaire postman who drives a used Camry displays more happiness than the overextended fool with the Hummer. Would the postman be any less content if his bank balance were, 25% lower? Hard to say, but someone who functions that way isn't wrapped around the axle like the Hummer-fool. By the way, why a Hummer? Was the Chevy Suburban or Ford Excursion inadequate in some way?

Think about what the wealth represents. Security, options, choice, peace of mind. Those are all head and heart things, not figures on a balance sheet. The more loosely those goals are connected to the amount of money in the bank one has, the more likely one is to reach them both.

[Troubleshooter]

A question that comes to mind is whether you should be taxed on 'stuff' or money or both or what?

1) The postal millionaire (funny sounding that) has a million dollars worth of stuff dies and leaves all of his stuff to his heirs.

2) Credit laden stock broker millionaire has a million dollars in the bank and stocks dies and leaves all of his monies to his heirs.

In scenario 1, the heirs has to sell stuff to pay the estate tax and now has no home or business to live in or continue with.

In scenario 2, the heirs go on about their business.

Probably a bit oversimplified but not untrue.

[BigV]

NOT oversimplified.

The magic words to make this spell a reality are "Asset Protection Trust".

Until 1987 (?) it was not legal anywhere in the US to created a trust for the benefit of oneself. Well, Alaska changed their state laws to permit such a trust, and seven more states followed suit since then.

The upshot of the the trust is that it is the owner of record of all the assets, stocks, bonds, property, maybe a car... whatever. But you still get to move the money around, and you get to drive the car. But if you're sued, you can only be sued for *your* property. Which is what, the shirt on your back maybe.

Hey, everybody should setup something like this, yeah? Well, since not every state has this legal structure in place, to set one up from wherever you live will cost thousands of dollars. More if you're out of state. And then thousands of dollars per year to have an in-state trustee manage the trust.

This is not a problem for the group of people who keep stacks of money by the fireplace for kindling (that was funny l123!), but for the diligent postman, this could be a serious drag on his lifestyle.

Now, this news comes to me on the heels of the news of the passage of the bankruptcy "reform" legislation passed by Congress today. I do not know what effect such a trust would have on the estate - heirs relationship, but I cannot imagine that such a Good Thing would be restricted to only living people. I mean the trust doesn't die, right? Like a corporation, it is immortal.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by BigV

Like a corporation, it is immortal.

That was going to be my next question. Isn't that the idea behind forming a corp to handle lottery winnings and such?

It really sucks that you have to go so far out of your way to protect your assets.

Is the trust going to take the place of the family legacy?

[Happy Monkey]

The Washington Post has a pretty good writeup on the Estate Tax.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I bought some software from Europe and on the form they wanted my VAT number. Click on the wtf button and it told me if I lived in Europe, I'd have to pay 17.5% value added tax. Sounds like sales tax to me. Sounds high too.

[jaguar]

Bruce it is sales tax.

[BigV]

Back to Social Security for a minute...

I have been wondering about the Bush administration's touting of Private Accounts (or personal accounts or whatever the hell adjective scored highest in the freaking focus groups). This PA element, is OWNED, by the person, it's inheritable, it's throttleable (more or less aggressive compositions). I think those are the highlights. Here's my question. I'm not trolling, I'm sincerely trying to understand how this is different from Individual Retirement Accounts?

Seriously, don't IRAs do what the PAs are promised to do? How are they different? I already know about Roth IRAs and non-Roth IRAs, I understand how my 401(k)s work. I think I get most of Social Security.

But the difference between IRAs and PAs, *blink blink*, nuttin.

Help please?

[Clodfobble]

The big difference is that currently, X dollars out of your paycheck go into Social Security, and anything you want to put into your IRA is more out of your paycheck.

In this system, the money going into the private account would come out of what you are already putting into Social Security, so you wouldn't see a change in your paycheck. The two big disagreement points are: whether you will end up with as much money in the long run compared to other proposed Social Security reforms, and whether we can afford to pay current retirees with so much less money going into Social Security.

[Happy Monkey]

And what happens if you run out of money in a fund-based system instead of a monthly-payment-based system.