Begoggle: This is unfair.They didn't allow that John Goodman guy to adopt his girlfriend, so they shouldn't allow this either.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/john-goodman-adopt-girlfrie nd _n_2971288.html
VTGremlin: You know how you want to be taken seriously? This isn't helping.
sallys: Now wait a minute, didn't LIberace do that 35 years ago?
Evil Canadian: Makes sense to me. In a rational society, they would be allowed to marry and this would be a non-issue./Happy Pride for all those celebrating this weekend.
alienated: Kuta: alienated: Okay, so they cant get married in Pennsylvania, yet .Why not move to say, New York or any other state that they can get married now ?They could. But if either one of them DIES in Pennsylvania, the state will not recognize their marriage for survivor's benefits.That was the whole impetus behind DOMA getting repealed, except that applied to federal benefits. The surviving lesbian of a married couple had to pay a huge extra inheritance tax because she couldn't pass along her assets to her lawful spouse?These guys obviously don't want to be the next "test case" at the state level.Oh, I understand that. Thats why I said they should move. PN and NY share a border- move to NY, visit PA. PA survivors benefit rules would have zero eefect on them if they are NY residents. Unless I am completely wrong .
RevMercutio: Except that they own property in PA.
ObnoxiousLonghorn: Ok, so, like, where are we going to draw the line with the whole LGBT stuff. Are we stopping at incest? Please let us stop at incest, I don't think I can be any more open minded and accepting./Didn't read the story, just the headline.
Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: VTGremlin: You know how you want to be taken seriously? This isn't helping.I thought taxes were evil and doing anything legally possible to avoid them was next to godliness.
Satanic_Hamster: How can you adopt adults?
Aquapope: This should send teabagger fundies straight crazy. Reducing taxes, on one hand. On the other hand... HOMOS!!!
Huck And Molly Ziegler: Aquapope: This should send teabagger fundies straight crazy. Reducing taxes, on one hand. On the other hand... HOMOS!!!Precisely my thinking. On the one hand the 'baggers would have to applaud the single-minded zealotry to avoid those evil taxes. On the other hand, the men might do icky things in bed and be a bad example for impressionable babies.The difference is 4 percent vs. 15 percent taxation. Is the difference THAT great, considering the hassles of adoption? I mean, I'd be tempted to say to hell with it and pay up, but the couple does have a great chance here to put across a pointed political message.
Dimensio: Begoggle: This is unfair.They didn't allow that John Goodman guy to adopt his girlfriend, so they shouldn't allow this either.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/john-goodman-adopt-girlfrie nd _n_2971288.htmlWere John (within the article) demonstrably attempting to avoid financial liability from multiple pending lawsuits, your comparison may be valid. He is not, however, so it is not.
fusillade762: Brainsick: Ted Nugent, English version.Even though it's the Mirror this couple is in Pennsylvania.
Quantum Apostrophe: Satanic_Hamster: No no, I mean, why is that even legal? What's the logic for it, besides financial scams?Are companies that register in the Bahamas to pay no tax also engaging in a scam, or simply using the law?
Claude Ballse: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x345]"I want to be everything to you, Gregory . I want to be father, brother, lover, best friend."
Lawnchair: Mr. Eugenides: If they own the property as Joint-Tenants the property goes to the surviving partner. No taxes, no muss, no fuss.It's only an issue if they own the property as tenants in common and if they do that can be fixed quickly enough.The same can apply to various accounts as long as they are joint account holders.Just because it avoids going to probate court doesn't mean that it doesn't count under the unified gift/inheritance tax system. After my dad died, my mom made her house joint-tenany with me (so I wouldn't have to probate it later). I had to report half the value of the house as a gift at that time, and the other half as inheritance when she died (of course, I was several digits short of worrying about any inheritance tax).
Resident Muslim: Gift to a person's own kids and inheritance should have nothing to do with the tax system.I worked for this money, and one of my highest motivating drivers was a better life for my kids, now you are going to mess with that?Take away half?! You kidding me?!
ThatGuyFromTheInternet: ZAZ: This is an old trick.Remember that drunk driver in Florida who adopted his girlfriend? We had a thread about the appeals court decision voiding adoption for lack of notice to interested parties. One of the judges would have disallowed the adoption because you can't adopt your girlfriend. He cited with approval an old New York case that was about gay adoption.I'm pretty sure either Steven Tyler or Ted Nugent did this back in the 70s.
SpdrJay: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: ZAZ: This is an old trick.Remember that drunk driver in Florida who adopted his girlfriend? We had a thread about the appeals court decision voiding adoption for lack of notice to interested parties. One of the judges would have disallowed the adoption because you can't adopt your girlfriend. He cited with approval an old New York case that was about gay adoption.I'm pretty sure either Steven Tyler or Ted Nugent did this back in the 70s.Steven Tyler adopted Ted Nugent?
Satanic_Hamster: No no, I mean, why is that even legal? What's the logic for it, besides financial scams?
sumida sublight: I'm also not getting all the squick here. Incest is a sexual relationship between two people with a close blood relation.Those of you claiming to be absolutely disgusted that these two are committing incest (which apparently in your mind wasn't incest for the duration of their relationship, but only became such the moment they signed a piece of paper), are either just grossed out because it's two guys, or are simply too stupid for words.
semiotix: Resident Muslim: Gift to a person's own kids and inheritance should have nothing to do with the tax system.I worked for this money, and one of my highest motivating drivers was a better life for my kids, now you are going to mess with that?Take away half?! You kidding me?!How many kids do you have that splitting $5,250,000 between them won't be enough to give them a shot at a "better life?" If you're worth less than that and you died today, the federal government wouldn't be taking any of it, much less half.
stirfrybry: So it's about money and not about the gay love
Quantum Apostrophe: Are companies that register in the Bahamas to pay no tax also engaging in a scam
Resident Muslim: So, what makes the government entitled to that money that is over the 5m? This is money that has already been taxed. What makes the transfer of ownership from me to my kids a transaction that deems taxation?Even worse is the 'gifting' tax if/when I give my kids something expensive.
semiotix: Resident Muslim: So, what makes the government entitled to that money that is over the 5m? This is money that has already been taxed. What makes the transfer of ownership from me to my kids a transaction that deems taxation?Even worse is the 'gifting' tax if/when I give my kids something expensive.Fair enough. I was hoping you'd go the HURRRRR GUMMINT TAXES route, but since you're asking in all seriousness, here's a sketch of my answer. (This is not intended as an airtight summary of all possible justifications for taxation whatsoever.)Two quick things up front. First of all, the "already taxed" thing is a bit of a red herring. Every dollar is taxed every time it changes hands, with various and numerous exceptions. My employer's profits are taxed, and then the income he pays to me is taxed, and then I pay sales tax, etc. That's three taxations. But nobody complains about the same dollar being earned three times. Second, you can't have an estate tax without a gift tax--otherwise parents would wait until they were circling the drain and then "gift" the whole estate to the nearest kid. (Which would in turn lead to a lot of annoying complications when Grandpa died sooner than expected, or the newly-wealthy kids started welching on the unwritten bargain that they'd keep Dad in the style he'd been accustomed to while he waited to die, etc.)But in answer to your "what gives the government the right" question, well, a bunch of things. At a basic level, it's the law enabling the estate tax, just as we have laws enabling the income tax, the sales tax, and every other tax. What you probably mean is "why is this a good idea, given that almost anyone would rather give their kids more money if they could?"There are a few technical reasons, at least in the US tax code, that make it necessary to take stock of things at the time of death, because there are taxes on investments that can be essentially deferred forever while a person lives, but which could not be collected from an inheritor as the rules are written.But mostly, it's because governments--and this includes very "fiscally conservative" or "pro-business" governments over the centuries--have learned that idle money and concentrated money are economically and socially toxic. A $10,000,000 inherited fortune is a huge disincentive to labor or entrepreneurship on the one hand--why work, or risk what you have, when you don't need to? Also, those kinds of fortunes tend to be very passively invested, which is less than ideal if you're trying to engineer a constantly growing economy. On those grounds alone, there's a very strong (and economically conservative) case to be made that "active rich" >> "idle rich," or put another way, that an economy in which people earn money is much, much healthier than one where people simply have money.Wealth disparity, which the estate tax cuts down on, is like sugar. A certain amount of it is always necessary; a lot of it over a long period of time gives you a very nasty disease that is essentially incurable. Remember, governments tend to see their roles not as the protectors of any one individual's welfare, but of the system as a whole. It's no great moral outrage from that standpoint to say that the interests of the whole in mitigating wealth disparity outweighs a given child's "right" to every penny of the sixth million, the seventh million, the tenth million dollar in a windfall.You mentioned charity--that's actually another argument in favor of the estate tax, although not one I'm fond of, since "charity" is defined a little loosely for tax purposes for my tastes. Large estates can and do avoid the estate tax that way, either by giving much more near the end of life, or making charities their beneficiaries. It's safe to say that the charity sector would take a huge hit if the estate tax went away.Incidentally, under the current law, your four kids would get about $2.1M apiece from your hypothetical $10M estate, if you did absolutely nothing to shelter any of it. I'm guessing there are very few children for whom $2.5M would be enough, but $2.1M would be a catastrophe, and that's the logic behind the law. Tax first where it will do the least harm.//two slashies only. Third one was used to pay tax.Heh.
Resident Muslim: 1) thank you so very much for giving me your time.2) I can argue a lot of these points, but I think emotionally, if I feel that beyond a certain point the government will take or tax that amount, I really wouldn't be incentivized to push beyond.3) I just checked the IRS website and it confirms that gifts to spouses are exempt. What difference to the government is it who I make the gift to? Or is this just some blanket law that closes loopholes? Giving my spouse an expensive gift does not differ to me from buying one of my kids a car. How does it affect the government?4) you have been favorited orange as a level-headed person.
If you like these links, you'll love
More funny for your money.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Sep 19 2017 08:27:07
Runtime: 0.413 sec (412 ms)