Your example business is a fantasy of your ignorance.  Privately held business's that fall in the range of value you offer are not held as personal assets of an individual, unless the individual is a fool.  Hence they are not subject to this tax and would not be closed as a result of a tax ON A DEAD MAN. 

You got any examples there Mr. Greenspan?

Glad to see you grabbed this.  Maybe Hampton was talking about minimum wage (keeping it below poverty) helps small business.  Another fantasy.  Ya get what ya pay for.

 

I wonder how many people with estates in the 30 million dollar range this inheritance tax relief really helps. Don't they already have trusts, incorporation for businesses, and various shelters?

I'm not in this tax bracket, and don't really know, but it seems that with all the lawyers working for the handful of people with 30 million dollar estates, they could figure out workable solutions without an act of Congress.

You make junior the Chairman, with a big salary.  Sissy gets stock which pays her for farting into the boardroom chair 4 times a year during corporate meetings.  The cousins all get a tax free funded trust that assures that even if they drop out of college they will be wealthy the day they turn 21.  All of your assets are in holding companies owned by your kin.

This whole issue highlights how the people that pay Republican politicians (campaign funds) get the legislation, and manipulate clueless tools to believe that they should support it - you tell a lie to an ignorant listener.  The estate tax only affects the stupendously rich and dead, it doesn't impoverish anyone.

Why couldn't they just raise the minimum to say $10 or so million.  There are better solutions if Hampton is so worried about his fortune. 

The Inheritance tax was created to keep this country from becoming ruled by a plutocracy.  The plutocracy (which must include Hampton) are already in charge.  The royals.  The dynasties.

Meanwhile if Hampton is worried about the ma and pa's he should stay out of walmart and buy local.

HRCon is in the "clueless tool" demographic.  He has shown his cards.  America is a place built on the notion that WHAT you do is more important than WHO you are.  We have no need for a class of loafer nobility.

Class envy does not fit you all too well, and what is this about the loafer nobility? Most millionaires are self-made. They deserve to keep the money they work for and pass it on to their children.

"Most millionaires are self-made."  Best laugh I've had all week.  Thanks, hrconservative! :)

By MarketWatch.

http://www.marketwat...

If you want to grow the economy and create more millionaires then you want to tax generational wealth.  Maybe not 60%.  Maybe not 50%.  But you need to create incentives for each generation to earn its way.  That's an American principle. 

Generational wealth is given out arbitrarily, and is usually spent arbitrarily.  This point of view is best represented by a guy name G.W. Bush after the 2004 election when he was talking about political capital: "I'm going to SPEND some political capital".  Most people who have to earn their way would say "I'm going to INVEST some capital." 

Historically Americans have not championed the virtues of hereditary wealth.  Those kind of ambitions speak to a different time and a different continent. 

If you're interested in creating competition and growing the economy then the fewer handouts the better.  This goes as much for the rich as it does for the poor.  As per usual, some in the GOP only seem to see half the equation.

The greatest gift they could give their children is to teach them to think for themselves.  A study showed that if you gave all the money away equally many rich would end up rich and the broke, broke again.  Where do you think bush would fall if he had an equal chance as everyone else.  He's a spender, not an investor. On his own he would personally fail.  In fact he has ruined every business he ever touched.

As Lowell said a meritocracy is what was envisioned.  Instead we have dullard sons (bush, allen).

The wealthy in this country do pass on their money.  They just have to pass on a little to society too.  And you benefit also.

I often wonder how much better of a place the world would be if Daddy Bush had simply cut the boy off after that drunken outburst in Georgetown all those years ago - instead of bankrolling him for his Texas hijinks. Baby Bush could be living in a modest rancher, married to a school teacher, raising a couple of daughters - and the world would be much safer. 

Imagine the disappointment of the Bush clan - the boy has sullied the family name, become a failed president, and created a blood red stain on their history.  Should have let him fail early.  Yet I have seen many other wealthy families make the same mistake - bankrolling a rotten apple until s/he destroys the family name.

While more new millionaires make rather than inherit their wealth, the idea of a "self-made" millionaire is a conceit that denies the role that society has had in enabling them to become wealthy.

Warren Buffett, founder of Berkshire Hathaway and the second-richest man in the world, says: "I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned."
And Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, says, "Lots of people who are smart and work hard and play by the rules don't have a fraction of what I have. I realize I don't have my wealth because I'm so brilliant." (The Self-Made Myth http://www.marketwat...)

Check out the report citing millionaires who concur that the "self-made" concept is a myth here: http://www.fairecono...

1700 millionaires who have estates large enough for taxation signed a petition to keep the estate tax. Their rationale: they owed something to society.

United for a Fair Economy contends that concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide, and tear communities apart. They work to build social movements for greater equality.

Too close to socialism for comfort for you? Some well known capitalists (Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates come to mind)would say otherwise. I'd rather not see the United States economy revert to a aristocratic or feudal state.

are used to reduce the value of a family owned business. One tactic is a family limited partnership, with the gradual gifting of the ownership to the heirs over time.

hr - sometimes you should really take a few minutes and learn about something before you say it. You are absolutely incorrect in what you say regarding the worth of small businesses and the selling of assets.

Most small businesses aren't worth that much. And those that are, have plans in place to pay the taxes. There is the occasional small business that has to sell to pay the taxes, but that is more due to poor planning than anything else.

I don't mean to pick on you but you just make it so easy by continuing to regurgitate the party line instead of looking into things for yourself.

But that would ruin the whole conservative world view.  If they LEARNED about things, how could they justify doing nothing on global warming, or the invasion of Iraq (despite no connection between Saddam and 9/11, etc.), or running huge budget deficits just as the baby boomers are reaching retirement age, etc., etc?  Facts and logic:  no fun at all for conservatives!

a meritocracy?  Or, do you prefer aristocracy?  If the former, you should strongly support the estate tax, the most progressive and fairest tax ever invented. If the latter, you should oppose the estate tax and leave no gazillionaire's kids behind.  Let me guess, what would a "conservative" support.  Hmmmm....gee this is tough!!! Ha.

Don't confuse them with "facts".
Speaking of conservative fantasy and denial, here is a wicked funny skit by Will Ferrell playing GW on global warming.

Will Ferrell - George Bush on Global Warming