Jim in Anchorage Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 In 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolinaBill Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 while there are no estate taxes this year on an estate such as Mr. Wilson's the govt will find a way to tax it eventually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChasBB Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 Good grief -- 55% death tax after this year. Government is out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolinaBill Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 Good grief -- 55% death tax after this year. Government is out of control. the rotation of death tax % isnt new though, it's been around since the reagan years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whites Bay Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 the rotation of death tax % isnt new though, it's been around since the reagan years Not to mention that it's not a "death tax". It's an "Inheritance Tax" or "Estate Tax". "Death Tax" is a term cooked up by a right-wing pollster/marketer to create anger over inheritance taxes among the middle class in order to assure passage in Congress. Inheritance taxes are normally - well, no, almost exclusively - a concern among the super-wealthy. I am not super-wealthy, I'm not even close. I have no problem taxing the living daylights out of some very rich dude who, frankly, can't take it with him (or her). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 9, 2010 Author Share Posted June 9, 2010 Not to mention that it's not a "death tax". It's an "Inheritance Tax" or "Estate Tax". "Death Tax" is a term cooked up by a right-wing pollster/marketer to create anger over inheritance taxes among the middle class in order to assure passage in Congress. Inheritance taxes are normally - well, no, almost exclusively - a concern among the super-wealthy. I am not super-wealthy, I'm not even close. I have no problem taxing the living daylights out of some very rich dude who, frankly, can't take it with him (or her). This is not PPP. It has to do with the Bills staying in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsRUs Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 Not going to wish ill upon anyone. Going to keep my fingers crossed and hope RW didn't cheap out on the lawyer. How about donating the bills + stadium to the city of Buffalo and hey Buffalo, how about selling it to the Kelly group? Win-Win-win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolinaBill Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 This is not PPP. It has to do with the Bills staying in Buffalo. right, and despite the 0% inheritance tax, theoretically, if RW were to die this yr, after the team passes, whomever received the team would have to pay an income tax on the revenue on the team, or something of that sort, there's nothing free, esp when it comes to the govt, and taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 Not going to wish ill upon anyone. Going to keep my fingers crossed and hope RW didn't cheap out on the lawyer. How about donating the bills + stadium to the city of Buffalo and hey Buffalo, how about selling it to the Kelly group? Win-Win-win. The NFL has the right to stop your donation idea. They have the right to prevent public ownership of any team. Green Bay was grandfathered in, but it would be easily prevented these days. We'd better hope for the Kelly group, but almost any group is going to borrow a tremendous amount of the money, which will leave them paying interest on the loan, which is likely to cause any group to need to move the team to a more profitable market. Let's hope a way around this can be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsRUs Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 The NFL has the right to stop your donation idea. They have the right to prevent public ownership of any team. Green Bay was grandfathered in, but it would be easily prevented these days. We'd better hope for the Kelly group, but almost any group is going to borrow a tremendous amount of the money, which will leave them paying interest on the loan, which is likely to cause any group to need to move the team to a more profitable market. Let's hope a way around this can be found. It's all wishful thinking at this point. A nudge nudge wink wink understanding that a "donation" to the city will result in a sale to the Kelly group might be something the NFL will be ok with. The Wilsons get tax breaks, Buffalo gets some much much much needed monetary respite from the sale to the K-gun group and we still have our Buffalo Bills. I realize I sound naive, but since we don't know anything for sure, it's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 This is not PPP. It has to do with the Bills staying in Buffalo. And yet.. the only way to guarantee the Bills stay in Buffalo is for Ralph to continue living. So, please delete this thread as it's in extremely poor taste and decidedly ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 This is not PPP. It has to do with the Bills staying in Buffalo. How much the tax is has nothing to do with whether or not the Bills stay in Buffalo. That decision will be made by the new owners. Ralph's family is selling the team when he dies and nothing will change that. As for the inheritance tax, Ralph bought the Bills for $25,000 and they are now worth almost a billion. He hasn't paid any tax on that gain. When he dies the family will be expected to pay taxes owed. By getting rid of the inheritance tax the country would be losing all of the tax revenue it would get at all. There is nothing wrong with that tax. (I don't really believe that all of somebodies goods should be taken away when they die I'm illustrating a hypocrisy.) I find it laughable how some people cry about the inheritance tax in one breath and then proclaim that only people who work hard make it. Well then, I say take it all away from their kids and let their kids work hard to make it. They'd be starting at a much higher level than the vast majority of people by having private school educations, expensive college degrees and a social networking tree that the vast majority of Americans could only wish for. Oddly though nobody seems to be for that idea. I guess working hard to get it all isn't that an attractive idea to the richest who espouse it. BTW, I think this thread belongs in PPP. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 9, 2010 Author Share Posted June 9, 2010 For the second time, this is about the Bills staying in Buffalo, not a right or wrong tax debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 For the second time, this is about the Bills staying in Buffalo, not a right or wrong tax debate. The inheritance tax has nothing to do with whether or not the Bills stay in Buffalo. It's up to whoever buys the team. If RW, God forbid, were to die this year all the inheritance tax means for this year is his family would pocket a lot more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 is RW's wife still alive because all the property can be transfered to her tax free any year- also while I don't think it matters in this case I'm pretty sure the tax is on the recipient- so if somebody had 2.5 mil and the first 500,000 (not sure what it is now) was non taxable and he had one inheritor the first $500,000 would not be taxed and the next 2 mil would be taxed at 55%- if he had 5 inheritors then each would get $500,000 tax free. I'm tired so sorry if this doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMetheHeadofLeonLett Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 In 2010 A. This may be the saddest post in the history of posting. B. What the !@#$ is up with brain hemmorages lately? Is it fashionable or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 9, 2010 Author Share Posted June 9, 2010 A. This may be the saddest post in the history of posting.B. What the !@#$ is up with brain hemmorages lately? Is it fashionable or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 How much the tax is has nothing to do with whether or not the Bills stay in Buffalo. That decision will be made by the new owners. Ralph's family is selling the team when he dies and nothing will change that. As for the inheritance tax, Ralph bought the Bills for $25,000 and they are now worth almost a billion. He hasn't paid any tax on that gain. When he dies the family will be expected to pay taxes owed. By getting rid of the inheritance tax the country would be losing all of the tax revenue it would get at all. There is nothing wrong with that tax. (I don't really believe that all of somebodies goods should be taken away when they die I'm illustrating a hypocrisy.) I find it laughable how some people cry about the inheritance tax in one breath and then proclaim that only people who work hard make it. Well then, I say take it all away from their kids and let their kids work hard to make it. They'd be starting at a much higher level than the vast majority of people by having private school educations, expensive college degrees and a social networking tree that the vast majority of Americans could only wish for. Oddly though nobody seems to be for that idea. I guess working hard to get it all isn't that an attractive idea to the richest who espouse it. BTW, I think this thread belongs in PPP. JMO So if you didn't go to private schools or had any social networking and yet were able, thorugh hard work over a lifetime, to amass a fortune and then die---it's OK for the govt. to take half of your life savings and worth and give it to others (who are not your family) who didn't earn it? Why is that better? Why is that more fair? Perhaps you son't see the irony of your (bolded) statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JinWPB Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 I could see the team being taxed at the capital gains tax rates but the past and proposed estate tax rates are nothing more than socialist/communist idiology, steal from the wealthy to support a broken government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 In 2010 I could never understand the logic of the government glomming a chunk of someone's hard earned money being passed on to their heirs, anyway. Hasn't it already been taxed enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts