Drill Now for oil

The justification is they need the money.

The illogic of it is what John pointed out: it instantly destroys something valuable that took years of hard work to create. In order to get a piece of some imaginary valuation.

"Logical" would be to leave it alone--they'd get more long-term taxes that way, preserve jobs, etc.

Why do they do such short-sighted stuff? Envy may be a factor.

Mostly I think they feel they've got to tax money while you've got it your hand, before you squander it. That's how they think because that's *exactly* what they'd do. That's how these same policymakers handle their own money (and public money too). Zero savings, leveraged lifestyles, etc.

I bet Congress' credit reports would make lurid reading. (ever read about the House banking scandal?)

Cheers, James Arthur

ty

Then again, how valuable is it really, if it cannot stand on its own? Maybe they are right to tax it while the iron is hot, so to speak.

You don't understand. The Feds demand a giant chunk of cash. The business won't have it. So you have to strip it.

James Arthur

Right. They tax the "goodwill." And they tax my ability to keep designing and selling things, even though I just died. They tax equipment and inventory at full book value, when it's worth squat on the surplus market. They tax any cash on hand, even though it's already been taxed. They tax the building at its current market value. The girls have a potential, up-front-right-now tax liability that far exceeds any liquid assets. The business and the jobs are dead.

John

Just make sure your daughters hang a sign out front, "Business killed by the Democrats", when they have to fold your business ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Those who will not learn from history get the lessons taught currently.

Try this for real quality of information.

POWs have no habeas corpus, whatsoever. Nor are they to be mistreated, tortured, nor have medical care withheld. Then compare track record and USSC decisions.

That is what i tried to tell JT.

That is a much easier problem, they are lawful spies / saboteurs etc., and should be treated accordingly.

I think you understate the problem. The weenies (of both ends) cannot stand the idea of some middle class upstart building up something decent worth a paltry few millions and turning it over to their heirs. That is a privilege reserved for the very wealthy like Shrillary or the Bushes.

If you make Taxicrats i might go for it.

Right, that was my point. I should have said that the goodwill should be re-valued prior to being taxed.

When I made the "standing on its own" comment, I was implying that the true forward-looking value is a whole lot less, for the very reasons you mention.

Why should any of it be taxed? All the proper taxes have been paid once, sometimes twice, occasionally thrice, already.

I just read that some states' unemployment funds are running out, after Congress extended benefits for the N'th time. What will they do? Increase unemployment taxes on employers, of course!

I never understood why government punishes people for creating jobs. But OK, if that's what they really don't want me to do, I'll try my best to not do it.

John

operty

vate

Is it too late to make them partners? Or incorporate?

But they tax on the historical value--the value estimated as of the day /before/ John dies.

That's patently unfair.

And it's not in their interest, but, having never actually done anything themselves, they don't get it.

Cheers, James Arthur

John's company is incorporated. That makes no difference. People believe in all sorts of fantasy loopholes--t'aint so.

Making the kids partners doesn't change their tax liability. If you get something of value--stock--it's income. It might be worse--they'd have to pay tax immediately, on today's value, at the worst possible rate (ordinary income).

It's kind of like inheriting a $70M Van Gogh. Nice, but it comes with a $30M tax bill, C.O.D.

James Arthur

Oh, except in this case the kids inherit Van Gogh's studio, but are taxed on his future paintings.

--James Arthur

I guess that's why people do things like keep hard assets separate from IP in different corporations, but all that complexity costs money and drains energy in a small company environment. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

There is a loophole, as always: life insurance. The day before I die, my life insurance hasn't yet paid off, so it's not included as an asset of the estate. And I can leave assets to charitable trusts or other bogus entities that are tax-exempt.

So a few megabucks of life insurance can help. It ain't cheap at my age.

The fact is that many of the inheritance tax problems can be mitigated by getting a bunch of lawyers to work all the loopholes, at great expense and wasted energy. I have one trust that includes detailed directions for using assets to feed and water any livestock that I leave, and I don't have livestock, unless cats are livestock.

John