Jimmy Kimmel, on John Boehner's absence at the correspondence dinner: Don't take it personally. He was probably afraid someone would ask him to pass the salt and he wouldn't have the votes.



/Side note: Apparently Eric Cantor never laughs.

pkellmey: Um, subtard, you must not be from a farming community. If you own a family farm, nearly every penny you have is wrapped up in property and equipment. When you die, you may have a million dollars worth of property, but very little liquid. However, they expect your kids to pay with liquid funds. That means they sell the property to the next person because they don't have $500,000 cash on hand to pay for it. There goes the family farm. It is happening in counties like mine across the country.

Just recently, the small-business boogeyman came up in the debate over the estate tax -- specifically, whether it is unfair to impose a tax on estates in excess of $7 million per couple (the level this year) or whether the first $10 million of every estate should be exempt from taxation. Predictably, the advocates of the $10 million proposal, Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), raised the small business/family farm canard. "Many have relatively low profit margins and are considered 'wealthy' by the government only because they own expensive equipment or land," they wrote in a letter to The Post.

In fact, nearly all small-business and family-farm estates are already shielded from having to pay estate tax. If the estate tax were kept at its current level, as President Obama advocates, only 430 business or farm estates would owe any tax whatsoever in 2011, according to an estimate by the Brookings Institution-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center. Moreover, it's not true that these estates would be forced to liquidate to come up with enough money to pay the estate tax. At current levels, 13 family farms and 41 family-owned businesses would not have had enough liquid assets to satisfy estate taxes in 2005, according to a study by the Congressional Budget Office. Even these would probably not have to be sold on account of a tax hit, because payments can be spread over a 14-year period.

HotWingConspiracy: pkellmey: Um, subtard, you must not be from a farming community. If you own a family farm, nearly every penny you have is wrapped up in property and equipment. When you die, you may have a million dollars worth of property, but very little liquid. However, they expect your kids to pay with liquid funds. That means they sell the property to the next person because they don't have $500,000 cash on hand to pay for it. There goes the family farm. It is happening in counties like mine across the country.

Just recently, the small-business boogeyman came up in the debate over the estate tax -- specifically, whether it is unfair to impose a tax on estates in excess of $7 million per couple (the level this year) or whether the first $10 million of every estate should be exempt from taxation. Predictably, the advocates of the $10 million proposal, Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), raised the small business/family farm canard. "Many have relatively low profit margins and are considered 'wealthy' by the government only because they own expensive equipment or land," they wrote in a letter to The Post.

In fact, nearly all small-business and family-farm estates are already shielded from having to pay estate tax. If the estate tax were kept at its current level, as President Obama advocates, only 430 business or farm estates would owe any tax whatsoever in 2011, according to an estimate by the Brookings Institution-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center. Moreover, it's not true that these estates would be forced to liquidate to come up with enough money to pay the estate tax. At current levels, 13 family farms and 41 family-owned businesses would not have had enough liquid assets to satisfy estate taxes in 2005, according to a study by the Congressional Budget Office. Even these would probably not have to be sold on account of a tax hit, because payments can be spread over a 14-year period.

It should also be noted that the exemption in 2005 was only $1.5 million with a rate of 47%; this year the exemption is $5.12 million with a rate of 35%, meaning that there are fewer family farms and family-owned businesses that will be impacted, and less tax to be paid by those estates that are impacted.

Nice concern troll with the family farm bit. There are ways to put your property in contructs prior to your death to ensure passage to the next generation (Such as selling it to them before you die, for example), and there are exemptions in the estate tax as it exists now.

Magorn: A) there is no estate tax on the federal level right now.

I don't think this is accurate. It's a $5 million exemption, 35% rate until the end of this year, then it reverts to the 2001-2002 levels of a $1 million exemption and a 55% rate.

pkellmey: When you die, you may have a million dollars worth of property, but very little liquid. However, they expect your kids to pay with liquid funds. That means they sell the property to the next person because they don't have $500,000 cash on hand to pay for it. There goes the family farm. It is happening in counties like mine across the country.

The kids can't take a loan out? Farmers get billions in subsidies already. The government pays farmers to not grow stuff. Maybe the kids can not grow more stuff on the farm to pay off the loan.

Karac: RichieLaw: I don't know, I'm as liberal as they come (giggity) and I find an estate tax to be fundamentally unfair. It just seems like double taxation.

Now, if we had a fair tax-code, with no loopholes for the uber-wealthy and corporations, maybe we wouldn't even need an estate tax.

When you make money, you get taxed.
When your kids make money, they get taxed.

Sure it's taxed twice, but it was earned twice as well. Might as well complain about having to pay income tax along with sales tax.

No, I get that. I was using "double taxation" literally, as in the same money/property was being taxed twice.

I personally feel that having 50% of your net worth wiped out when you die is wrong. I understand how the tax code works, and I understand the reasoning behind it, I just don't agree with it on a personal level. I think income and property should be taxed fairly during life, and not just as a catchall when a person dies.

pkellmey: Um, subtard, you must not be from a farming community. If you own a family farm, nearly every penny you have is wrapped up in property and equipment. When you die, you may have a million dollars worth of property, but very little liquid. However, they expect your kids to pay with liquid funds. That means they sell the property to the next person because they don't have $500,000 cash on hand to pay for it. There goes the family farm. It is happening in counties like mine across the country.

Basically , you figure out which of your kids is going to keep farming, and put everything in joint ownership with them. That way, when you kick, they're not inheriting anything - they already own it. A little more legal wrangling is actually needed, but that's why the devil invented lawyers.

Karac: pkellmey: Um, subtard, you must not be from a farming community. If you own a family farm, nearly every penny you have is wrapped up in property and equipment. When you die, you may have a million dollars worth of property, but very little liquid. However, they expect your kids to pay with liquid funds. That means they sell the property to the next person because they don't have $500,000 cash on hand to pay for it. There goes the family farm. It is happening in counties like mine across the country.

Basically , you figure out which of your kids is going to keep farming, and put everything in joint ownership with them. That way, when you kick, they're not inheriting anything - they already own it. A little more legal wrangling is actually needed, but that's why the devil invented lawyers.

Not necessary, he's making shiat up.

If you don't stand to inherit a bunch of money and you still support the repeal of the estate tax you sound like a middle class republican.

RichieLaw: I personally feel that having 50% of your net worth wiped out when you die is wrong. I understand how the tax code works, and I understand the reasoning behind it, I just don't agree with it on a personal level. I think income and property should be taxed fairly during life, and not just as a catchall when a person dies.

They aren't taxing the dead guy. They're taxing the next person who gets the estate as a form of income. The capital or property is being transferred for the value it's appraised to be at that time, and as such it is legally a transaction, and is therefore subject to income tax.

Trusts exist specifically to avoid the issue of a person inheriting a large estate and having to pay high taxes up front. There are already legal ways to ease the burden of the estate tax. This really is about billionaires just wanting to give their kids money with little to no taxes being paid at all.

jehovahs witness protection: HMMM...Someone works hard, makes a buttload of money, pays taxes and when they die the government takes half of their stuff.
How is that not considered theft?

You can't technically steal from a corpse.

Pish posh. Taxes are for the little people.

No one worth north of 5M is going to be paying the full 35% margin. ever. There are too many legal vehicles to remove wealth from an estate (defective trusts, internal "loans" etc). Personally I would like to see the exemption at 10M, and 25% margin, but that is purely selfish reasoning. I understand the need in terms of society for not having an Uber-class through dynasty, but I also don't want to give the UST half of my cash (and my kids cash) because i won the genetic lottery. Besides, 5M isn't a lot of money these days, depending on where you live.

RichieLaw: I don't know, I'm as liberal as they come (giggity) and I find an estate tax to be fundamentally unfair. It just seems like double taxation.

Now, if we had a fair tax-code, with no loopholes for the uber-wealthy and corporations, maybe we wouldn't even need an estate tax.

Damn, thought I might make it in before "double taxes".

Kids, remember that money is not taxed. Ever. Transactions are taxed, and inheritances, like dividends, are transactions in which money is moved from one party to another party. Therefore, taxed.

I am so worried about the estate tax breaking 'farmers'. How will Cargill and Monsanto be able to keep shoes on the kids?

Alphax: Philip Francis Queeg: [collegecandy.files.wordpress.com image 600x337]

These boys worked hard for their millions! If the estate tax isn't repealed they will be impoverished. Why are Democrats so heartless to these underprivileged, struggling youth?

Has Mitt been cloning himself?

Maybe that's who's currently running for President. R-Money's attempts at humor and bonding with his fellow man seem like the actions of a defective clone, methinks. I wonder where the real Mitt Romney is.

DamnYankees: RichieLaw: No, I get that. I was using "double taxation" literally, as in the same money/property was being taxed twice.

All money and property is taxed every time it is transferred (with a few exceptions). Your construct doesn't make sense. We should restrict taxation to one time per physical dollar bill transferred?

No, I would not go that far. I think the rate is too high and would rather that ordinary income, investment income and property be taxed appropriately during the acquiring of that property/income. I am only speaking in the context of the estate tax.

Giltric: Does anyone have a chart detailing how much revenue an estate tax actually generates and from who?

Maybe they are dumb but I would think the truly wealthy are able to avoid this by setting up trusts and passing on the money before they die.

No chart; a quick Google found one statistic. In 2008, the estate tax collected $28 billion from fewer than 20,000 estates - the wealthiest 1% of the 2.5 million deaths that year. This has probably gone down since then; there's a higher exemption and lower rate this year.

Here's the source: Link

qorkfiend: Giltric: Does anyone have a chart detailing how much revenue an estate tax actually generates and from who?

Maybe they are dumb but I would think the truly wealthy are able to avoid this by setting up trusts and passing on the money before they die.

No chart; a quick Google found one statistic. In 2008, the estate tax collected $28 billion from fewer than 20,000 estates - the wealthiest 1% of the 2.5 million deaths that year. This has probably gone down since then; there's a higher exemption and lower rate this year.

Here's the source: Link

Stupid WSJ. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704358904575477593075638 722.html

RichieLaw: No, I would not go that far. I think the rate is too high and would rather that ordinary income, investment income and property be taxed appropriately during the acquiring of that property/income. I am only speaking in the context of the estate tax.

The estate tax is on someone who is acquiring property/income. Yet you oppose it being taxed appropriately.

AncientLurker: No one worth north of 5M is going to be paying the full 35% margin. ever. There are too many legal vehicles to remove wealth from an estate (defective trusts, internal "loans" etc). Personally I would like to see the exemption at 10M, and 25% margin, but that is purely selfish reasoning. I understand the need in terms of society for not having an Uber-class through dynasty, but I also don't want to give the UST half of my cash (and my kids cash) because i won the genetic lottery. Besides, 5M isn't a lot of money these days, depending on where you live.

So you are admitting this estate tax debate is a total non-issue being brought up by idiots, then?

Chameleon: RichieLaw: No, I would not go that far. I think the rate is too high and would rather that ordinary income, investment income and property be taxed appropriately during the acquiring of that property/income. I am only speaking in the context of the estate tax.

The estate tax is on someone who is acquiring property/income. Yet you oppose it being taxed appropriately.

He also defended the flat tax up-thread. 'Cause that hasn't effectively created an oligarchy in all the Eastern European countries who've tried it or anything.

qorkfiend: DozeNutz: qorkfiend: Can any one of the conservatives who's so concerned about the budget deficit and the national debt please defend giving a tax break to children of billionaires?

Well, you got a point there. Except the government borrows +1Trillion each and every year. So once that happens I guess its ok to take half of what people earned over their lifetime to earn. And how it can be construed as anything other than theft is lol too.

And also, I love how its a 'tax break'. So everything that anyone gets to keep is considered a tax break, since the government could do a 100% tax right? This is how backwards the argument of tax breaks have become.

Right, real fiscal conservatives look at a trillion-dollar deficit and decide that the best course of action is to reduce government revenues by giving billionaires more money. That's sound fiscal policy, right there.

So a better fiscal policy is to keep spending that same amount, and then add MORE with MORE government programs/subsidies, and then biatch about the rich need to pay more taxes right? I am not for deficit spending AT ALL. It is immoral to put a debt on future generations that have not come into existence yet. So until we get to the point where government doesn't borrow money (which is impossible with the Fed Reserve) we are going to have the same problem, just different answers. So maybe we can agree that spending money we don't have is the root problem that needs to be solved first???

AncientLurker: No one worth north of 5M is going to be paying the full 35% margin. ever. There are too many legal vehicles to remove wealth from an estate (defective trusts, internal "loans" etc). Personally I would like to see the exemption at 10M, and 25% margin, but that is purely selfish reasoning. I understand the need in terms of society for not having an Uber-class through dynasty, but I also don't want to give the UST half of my cash (and my kids cash) because i won the genetic lottery. Besides, 5M isn't a lot of money these days, depending on where you live.

ZERO people pay federal estate tax at a rate of 35%. Just like ZERO people pay a 35% federal income tax. It is statistically impossible.

A $10MM estate with zero planning and deductions would currently pay a 17.5% rate.

DozeNutz: qorkfiend: DozeNutz: qorkfiend: Can any one of the conservatives who's so concerned about the budget deficit and the national debt please defend giving a tax break to children of billionaires?

Well, you got a point there. Except the government borrows +1Trillion each and every year. So once that happens I guess its ok to take half of what people earned over their lifetime to earn. And how it can be construed as anything other than theft is lol too.

And also, I love how its a 'tax break'. So everything that anyone gets to keep is considered a tax break, since the government could do a 100% tax right? This is how backwards the argument of tax breaks have become.

Right, real fiscal conservatives look at a trillion-dollar deficit and decide that the best course of action is to reduce government revenues by giving billionaires more money. That's sound fiscal policy, right there.

So a better fiscal policy is to keep spending that same amount, and then add MORE with MORE government programs/subsidies, and then biatch about the rich need to pay more taxes right? I am not for deficit spending AT ALL. It is immoral to put a debt on future generations that have not come into existence yet. So until we get to the point where government doesn't borrow money (which is impossible with the Fed Reserve) we are going to have the same problem, just different answers. So maybe we can agree that spending money we don't have is the root problem that needs to be solved first???

SO you agree that the Republicans are wrong for attempting to pass this tax cut now.

verbaltoxin: So you are admitting this estate tax debate is a total non-issue being brought up by idiots, then?

absolutely. The debate itself is pointless as there is an entire industry of lawyers and wealth managers that make a good living setting up legal tax dodges. Hell, if you are facing a 3M tax bill, then have one of the trusts you created fund a 3M insurance policy on the asset owner. Problem solved. The estate tax will never be repealed as there are too many people making money off trying to avoid it.

pkellmey: Um, subtard, you must not be from a farming community. If you own a family farm, nearly every penny you have is wrapped up in property and equipment. When you die, you may have a million dollars worth of property, but very little liquid. However, they expect your kids to pay with liquid funds. That means they sell the property to the next person because they don't have $500,000 cash on hand to pay for it. There goes the family farm. It is happening in counties like mine across the country.

Is that you Joe the Plumber?

Republicans lie to us for our own good.

AncientLurker: Besides, 5M isn't a lot of money these days, depending on where you live.



That's what I'm saying. Can you even gas up a yacht with that? Slap me 5, bro! 5 million that is, LOL. No but seriously, it's funny that poors think five million is real money.

jehovahs witness protection: HMMM...Someone works hard, makes a buttload of money, pays taxes and when they die the government takes half of their stuff.
How is that not considered theft?

Because all transactions are taxed and inheriting stuff is a transaction.

/the .gov should take it ALL above~100k. Direct decendents can have first dubs to buy the material goods before it get auctioned, in case of sentimental value.

RichieLaw: I personally feel that having 50% of your net worth wiped out when you die is wrong. I understand how the tax code works, and I understand the reasoning behind it, I just don't agree with it on a personal level. I think income and property should be taxed fairly during life, and not just as a catchall when a person dies.

Which is probably why you don't get taxed when you die, your kids (still alive) get taxed when they inherit. If you want to have a discussion about whether or how much to set the estate tax at that's one thing. But if you want to keep throwing in nonsense phrases like double taxation that's another. Every single dollar is taxed whenever it passes from one person to another, the same as what happens when you die and your money passes from your estate to your inheritors. Just because your daddy originally made the money doesn't mean you shouldn't be taxed on it when it passes to you.

AncientLurker: Besides, 5M isn't a lot of money these days, depending on where you live.

Bullshiat. If you were given five million dollars (tax free) the day you turned 18, and merely put it into the bank at 4% interest, you could live a very, very nice life with never having to work a day in your life. Yes, there are individual houses that cost more than that in some places-don't live there, live somewhere where you can buy a huge mansion for a million dollars (like in 90% of the country). You then could spend $100k-250k every year of your life on property taxes for said mansion, luxury vacations, fancy cars, whatever.

Dr Dreidel: RichieLaw: No, I get that. I was using "double taxation" literally, as in the same money/property was being taxed twice.

The dollar I earn in salary today is the dollar my local grocer gets taxed on tomorrow.

The dollar my local grocer gets taxed on tomorrow is a dollar that gets paid out to a Social Security beneficiary the day after.

The dollar a Social Security beneficiary gets taxed on the day after tomorrow is a dollar that goes to HER local grocer.

...which goes, this time, to the Federal Government...

...which goes to one of its contractors...

...which hits my pocket (as an employee of a contractor)...

...which gets turned into booze...

[ad infinitum]

The same dollars get taxed all the time. When the owner of that dollar changes, we tax it. C'est la vie.

// you can also say this about durable goods - every time it gets resold, someone is supposed to pay taxes on it

Those are taxes that the States charge on top of what the federal government charges. Not the federal government taxing the same money twice.

RichieLaw: No, I would not go that far. I think the rate is too high and would rather that ordinary income, investment income and property be taxed appropriately during the acquiring of that property/income.

See, now that's where you and I would fundamentally disagree. The government needs a certain amount of money to run and throughout my life, the government is going to tax me a certain percentage of however much money I made. The amount of money I will make in my lifetime is a fixed number therefore teh amount in taxes I will make is a fixed number. The government is going to get that amount from me one way or another. I would much rather the government get that amount from me after I'm dead from the leftovers when I'm not using my money anymore than when I'm alive and actually need/want it. That's why the estate tax is a really farking good thing. I'm dead, why would I give a fark how much the government takes? I wouldn't.

Similarly, the amount of money I will make in my lifetime is going to increase. Early on in my life, when I'm buying a house, having kids and starting a career I have huge expenses but a small income. Later on in life, my house will be paid off, the kids will be on their own and I will be decades into a career making a significantly larger income. Again, the amount I pay in taxes is fixed, the government is going to get it one way or another, so how would I like to pay it? Well, it would be pretty farking nice if in my lower income years when I'm going through some expensive ass shiat I'm paying a much lower tax rate and I make up for it later on when I have hardly any expenses and a larger income. That's why I'm for a progressive tax rate and indeed, reducing tax rates for the lower brackets and increasing tax rates for the higher brackets.

jehovahs witness protection: HMMM...Someone works hard, makes a buttload of money, pays taxes and when they die the government takes half of their stuff.
How is that not considered theft?

The option could be that they work hard, make a boatload of money, pay no taxes and then after their death their estate is overrun by the lower class that loot, trash and burn the entire goddamned 45 acre estate to the ground and turn it into a community farming project.

Fact of the matter is that they were able to become successful largely because of what the government is and has done and provided for its people in the way of education, infrastructure, services, etc.

That's what any persons success has been built upon.

pkellmey: Um, subtard, you must not be from a farming community. If you own a family farm, nearly every penny you have is wrapped up in property and equipment. When you die, you may have a million dollars worth of property, but very little liquid. However, they expect your kids to pay with liquid funds. That means they sell the property to the next person because they don't have $500,000 cash on hand to pay for it. There goes the family farm. It is happening in counties like mine across the country.

and?