From: Gary Britt 

The latest changes have move it up a bit from the 1MM to 2MM or 3MM but
those changes AREN'T permanent I don't believe.  I wouldn't have a problem
with carryover basis for capital gains purposes if the immoral death taxes
were eliminated.

Gary

Robert G Lewis wrote:
> You might want to check your figures on when the tax kicks in Gary.
>
> Personally I'd say if you want to eliminate the estate tax you should keep
> the original basis for Capital Gains taxes, not the basis at time of death
> ( or transfer not sure when it changes).
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:46714b50$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Don't buy it at all.  Its merely a fanciful rationalization to avoid
>> calling it what it is a confiscatory unjustified taking at the point of a
>> gun if necessary from the estate of the person who earned so that those
>> who didn't earn it can use it for their own power and aggrandizement.  A
>> rationalization to avoid confronting it is nothing more than a forced
>> taking for greed, power, envy, and political power.
>>
>> The above is true whether there is any truth to the subelements of this
>> fancy sounding rationalization.
>>
>> However the subelements and assumptions in your postulation below are not
>> true.  They are proven false by Walmart rising from a single mom and pop
>> store in bum fuck Arkansas to the largest corporation in the entire world.
>> Sam Walton didn't start out with any millions and he built this empire
>> without the capital you describe and he did it in an industry of some of
>> the lowest possible profit margins and an industry already occupied by
>> other huge companies with many 100's of millions of capital and those
>> vaunted professional managers and engineers in your postulation.
>>
>> The bottom line is that people/entrepreneurs take risks and some succeed
>> in building wealth (and that means creating jobs and opportunities for
>> other entrepreneurs who also create jobs).  They do this for themselves
>> and their families.  It is NOT for some non-risk taking slovenly eggheads,
>> bureaucrats, crooked politicians, or the just plain greedy and envious to
>> steal with the point of the governments guns that which they did not earn
>> or for which they took absolutely NO RISKS in order to use it for their
>> own purposes or give it to others.
>>
>> 2nd, the wealth is accumulated in large part on an AFTER TAX basis and has
>> already been taxed.
>>
>> Finally, If you want MORE of something like job creating, risk taking,
>> wealth building entrepreneurs reward it and venerate it.  If you want LESS
>> of that, punish it with confiscatory taxes.  Its just that simple.
>>
>> Confiscatory death taxes kick in at around $1MM with some talking about
>> increasing it to a rather paltry $10MM, NOT the $100MM in your example.
>> Also, the immorality of the death tax is irrelevant to the amount of
>> wealth involved.  Thats why it applies to huge almost unimaginable wealth
>> like Bill Gates or the the 2nd or 3rd generation family business that has
>> accumulated net wealth in the $100MM to $500MM dollar range.  There are
>> more $100MM net asset family businesses than the greedy/envious classes
>> could ever imagine. They are usually the largest contributors to local
>> small town city functions and local charities and one of that small towns
>> largest employers. They should be celebrated and encouraged, instead of
>> being objects of jealousy and state sponsored robbery.
>>
>> Your postulation's belief that professional managers and engineers are
>> miracle working wealth creators/preservers is false.  If they were really
>> such kind of people they would be out taking risks and building wealth for
>> themselves and their own families rather than working for a salary for the
>> risk taking c average student who took life by the horns and the
>> opportunities provided in the USA to build a huge family fortune.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> John Beckett wrote:
>>> Gary Britt  wrote in message
>>> news::
>>>> There is no justification at all, morally or economically, for any
>>>> amount of death taxation.
>>> What about the argument that once a family has accumulated (say) $100M,
>>> they get an advantage that can't be matched. A large amount of cash pays
>>> for managers who ensure that the pile increases with no commensurate
>>> effort or community benefit.
>>>
>>> When you have $100M, you can pay people to engineer elaborate schemes so
>>> you have an "opt-in" tax system - those controlling
the pool can pay
>>> whatever they want (or more likely, don't want).
>>>
>>> A death tax is a brick wall which says, "Let's see, you
started with
>>> $100M, and now 30 years later you're dead, and you have $1B. Some
>>> percentage of that needs to be redistributed."
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5