[rollei_list] Re: OT Estate Tex (was Re: Copyright Law)

  • From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 21:55:23 -0500

Peter -

Your numbers/calculus is way off. Research the distribution of wealth
in the US and you'll get a handle on who has what relative to the
average population's wealth and savings...

As for what will happen to Estate Taxes down the road, it is being
legislated right now, so we do not know. At the current levels, Estate
taxes are a concern only to the very top percentile of USers


Eric Goldstein

--

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Peter K. <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Spoken like someone who is safe under California's Proposition 13. Your
> taxes have probably remained the same for the last 20 years.
>
> The Estate taxes for anyone who owns a home in the East or West would most
> likely be far more than the 3-4%. Than number is a pure fabrication by
> politicians. Think about it. If you worked for 30+ years and have a nest egg
> or 401K, and a home in someplace like say Massachussetts, Conencticut, NY,
> NJ, or California, your home is worth about $500K (conservatively). Add to
> that your savings and investments which add maybe another $400-500K and you
> are a target for the new law that goes into effect in 2011, where the value
> is once again reduced to $1million. Its not a lot of money these days when
> you consider home prices that are in essence part of your estate. Especially
> if you like in areas that are more in demand such as a nice suburb of a
> major city. In my area, homes are at least $800K. Where I lived in NJ, even
> there they are roughly $600K. In the boroughs of New York City, even the
> small homes are about 500K+. So the 3-4% is not a real number. It would say
> maybe 15-20% more likely.
>
> Peter K
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 5:12 PM
>> Subject: [rollei_list] OT Estate Tex (was Re: Copyright Law)
>>
>>
>> Hi Austin -
>>
>> Then for the benefit of the rest of our readers who are likely not so
>> conversant in US Estate Law, let's get accurate information out there.
>> The tax to which you refer only effects the very wealthiest of all
>> Americans, the top 3-4% I would guess. The US tax structure is
>> basically a progressive one, and those who are able to pay more are
>> generally called upon to do so with their income tax, property tax,
>> and estate tax. At least that the law intends.
>>
>>
>> Eric Goldstein
>>
>>    While I agree with you in general I don't think property tax is really
>> a progressive tax. While it increases with the value of the property that is
>> not always consonant with the wealth of the owner and certainly not with
>> income. A case in point is the tremendous increase in assesed value of real
>> property in the period from around the early 1960s to the 1970s. The
>> valuation was increased because property values, especially those for homes,
>> was driven up by speculators. The result was that many could no longer
>> afford to live in homes they had owned for many years. This was one of the
>> main reasons that the notorious proposition 13 was passed in 1978. It
>> prevented an increase in tax value of a primary residence until it was sold.
>> Prop 13 had many other sections and was IMO bad legislation but the
>> limitation in the increase of property tax on private homes did make some
>> sense. If incomes were tied to home values there would have been no problem
>> but it isn't always the case.
>>    Commercial property is different although steep increases in property
>> taxes can drive some business out of existance.
>>    IMO income tax is the only really progressive tax. However it has
>> become such a bugaboo to politicians that they will propose any sort of
>> hidden tax or regressive tax, like sales taxes, instead. Government does
>> need income because the citizens demand services but people think it should
>> all be free.
>>
>> --
>> Richard Knoppow
>> Los Angeles, CA, USA
>> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ---
>> Rollei List
>>
>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the
>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in
>> the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter K
> Ó¿Õ¬
>
---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: