Harbor Freight family feud

Do you mean that what her dad pays for her clothing, is not taxed with gift tax?

Good question.

i

Staying at family compounds, buying on family charge accounts, payments for bogus services, staff on family payroll, there are probably a lot of ways to prop up her lifestyle without gift taxes.

Hard to say, my guess is that she is too high profile to hide that sort of thing.

i

Most of it is probably legal. Staying at your Dad's house or summer home is not taxable. What if your family has five homes/complexes? While you're there you have use of the family vehicles, servants, club memberships....supplement that with some carefully crafted trust fund money and earnings- she's rich without large taxable transfers.

Even if it's taxed, the tax doesn't take all of it. You people act like someone ending up with a hundred million dollars out of a 200 million dollar estate is impoverished or something.

Well, yes, but no assets are transferred. My kids stay at my home too (expensive) and I wipe their butts (could also be expensive, but I do it for free).

i

Yes. Afterall...poligamy is voluntary.

Gunner

"A conservative who doesn't believe? in God simply doesn't pray; a godless liberal wants no one to pray. A conservative who doesn't like guns doesn't buy one; a liberal gun-hater wants to disarm us all. A gay conservative has sex his own way; a gay liberal requires us all to watch and accept his perversion and have it taught to children. A conservative who is offended by a radio show changes the station; an offended liberal wants it banned, prosecuted and persecuted." Bobby XD9

You act like the estate is all cash. What if that half of the inheritance means that property has to be sold to pay the tax?

The original intent of estate taxes was social engineering in the 18th century England. The intent was to break up the large estates, thus reducing the political power of the landed gentry relative to that of the King and of Parliment, and in this the tax was successful.

Joe Gwinn

Hilton may be lacking in the morals area but she's one sharp broad - a millionaire in her own right many times over. Paris Hilton has become a brand and that brand has left the person behind. She is now Paris Hilton, Inc.

JC

Ignoramus18915 on Fri, 30 Jul

2010 13:31:24 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Apparently, you've never held stock in a company which for various reasons decided to "skip the dividend." Or stock in a company which doesn't issue dividends. Say, Microsoft

Ignoramus18915 on Fri, 30 Jul

2010 13:31:24 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:>

Bah, you are one of the capitalist running dogs, those who inherit wealth are the worst of the lot. I'm sorry citizen, but you are being greedy, by not sharing the wealth.

I'm sorry, but it does seem to me that you are the one who seems to feel that I should have a claim to your money, because I am poor and you are not. And that your children don't need it, being the offspring of a rich corporatist.

Ignoramus18915 on Fri, 30 Jul

2010 13:21:35 -0500 typed >> Nope. An Estate Tax (or to call it more properly a Death Tax) is

Ah, so when you buy something, it is a gift? Do you kids know that when you pay for something for them, it is a gift? Do you report all those transfers to the IRS on your voluntary tax form?

I would not be surprised if Miss Hilton had a credit card which Daddy covered. I would not be surprised if she had a nice job with the Hilton Corporation as a means of explaining her income. I'm also quite sure that she, and her father, and her grandfather, have on staff some pretty clever tax attorneys, who's' job it is to minimize the tax bit. After all, Tax Avoidance is the only intellectual exercise which had real rewards.

But that doesn't change the fact that you seem to object to Paris Hilton (et alia) inheriting her father's estate, yet feel that you should be able to pass on your estate to your children.

"ATP" on Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:03:30

-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

And doubt you not that the family and company have some very sharp tax attorneys who have figured that all out.

That is the real problem with the "tax the Rich" mentality. The alleged targets (The Rich) are able to afford the lawyers and accountants to find the ways and means to accomplish the desired end, while those who would like to become rich, are not able to afford them This is one reason why big corporations don't really mind business regulations. They can afford the compliance costs in terms of employees who do nothing but fill out government paperwork.

>

Ignoramus18915 on Fri, 30 Jul

2010 13:21:35 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Why are you so envious of those who are "better off" than you? That's the underlying issue: envy, and a desire to punish the rich.. You have it, I don't.

So why should I be concerned if the Government decided you corporatists have to pay more taxes? I mean, I don't have a corporation, and I'm not likely to have one, so why should I concern myself if they decide you aren't paying your fair share?

toodles pyotr

"J. Clarke" on Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:52:51

-0400 typed >>> >>>>> >>>>>> "Ignoramus18915" wrote

And you act as if having the government take half of what you saved and earned over the course of your life is not a bad thing.

Some people behave as if something is okay, as long as it involves large amounts of money.

What Iggy is proposing is basically the position of most people throughout history, throughout western societies. It you read the sections on taxation of inheritances since Roman times, in Adam Smith's _The Wealth of Nations_ (particularly the Appendices to Articles I and II, v.2.113 and following, you'll see that the basic principle hasn't changed.

It's a much more thoughtful and sensible case than the simplistic and extremist nonsense that you're proposing here.

Well, I'd feel a lot worse about if if it meant that somebody was going to miss meals as a result of it.

When you're working for a living it's hard to develop much sympathy for anybody who doesn't have to.

pyotr filipivich on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:08:33

-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

I should amend that to read: Some people behave as if something is okay, as long as it involves large amounts of other people's money.

Come to think of it, as long as they just tax those people who still favor Obama tax increases, who am I to complain? They get to pay more in tax, and the government get the revenue.