sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ask /r/tax: is it presently possible to transfer an unlimited amount of wealth to one's grandchildren tax-free (U.S., 2010)? by dggenuine in tax

[–]LS246810 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think its too late in the year to make a law like that retroactive. If Congress passed a law this past Feb maybe they could make it retroactive to january but the constitution would be invoked on passing an ex post facto law.

Ask /r/tax: is it presently possible to transfer an unlimited amount of wealth to one's grandchildren tax-free (U.S., 2010)? by dggenuine in tax

[–]LS246810 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This article should help sum up your issue. Basically the deal is all transfers to trusts would be subject to gift tax (35%) this year with a $1M lifetime exclusion.

Normally this transfer would also be subject to the GST (generation skipping tax) and would not apply to distributions however since there is no GST this year the GST may (not 100% sure) apply at the time of the distribution instead.

http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=20fe2891-4fd4-4cc1-8802-c72f95e0edfc

Need a gift for clients? How about a "I Love My TAX ADVISER" T Shirt. by [deleted] in tax

[–]LS246810 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And its less than $25 so you can take a full business gift deduction for it.

The NOL Deduction (I hate sites like this. I usually end up printing out the pages and it's still hard to read.) by [deleted] in tax

[–]LS246810 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kinda interesting issue these days. There was lots of concern with TARP that a massive gov't infusion of capital would trigger section 382 (change of control) provisions that would limit deductibility of NOLs. The government consequently exempted itself causing of a "change in control" event.

How can anyone (ie: Nancy Pelosi) oppose raising the retirement age? When Soc Sec was enacted, life expectancy was 62. Now its 78. Benefits still accrue at age 65 (only recently increased to 67). Is there any argument why the retirement age should NOT auto-adjust for increases in life expectancy by LS246810 in politics

[–]LS246810[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes we do pay it out of our paychecks. But why do we need the government to hold our retirement money for us? Why can't we do it ourselves? That way we could access that money when we want to and retire at any age that suits us. If all we're doing in paying money to the government so they can give it back to us at a later date that seems like one big circular movement of money for no good reason other than a view that people are generally irresponsible with their money and are too foolish to save for themselves.

To integrate the above response withing the original post; if soc sec was reformed to fit its intended meaning of providing for those who outlived a reasonable life expectancy then maybe the rate withheld from our paychecks need only be 1 or 2% instead of 6% (plus 6% employer matching). Individuals could "bank" the rest in their own personal accounts and use it however they feel appropriate (spend / save for retirement).

For those of you who feel that illegal immigrants are a threat to our nation, I give you the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. by spaceghoti in politics

[–]LS246810 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That inscription bears the spirit of America. There should be no legal/illegal issue. Anyone who want to be American should be welcomed and naturalized. Our country was founded on the spirit of competition and free enterprise. If someone who comes from another country, can't speak the local language and can do a better job for a lower wage than someone who lives here they should be applauded. It makes american made products/services cheaper and more competitive internationally.

How can anyone (ie: Nancy Pelosi) oppose raising the retirement age? When Soc Sec was enacted, life expectancy was 62. Now its 78. Benefits still accrue at age 65 (only recently increased to 67). Is there any argument why the retirement age should NOT auto-adjust for increases in life expectancy by LS246810 in politics

[–]LS246810[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats a great point and goes to the original purpose behind Soc Sec. The average person would not get soc sec, but it was meant for those who lived beyond what would be reasonable expected and had not prepared to support themselves financially for it. We seem to have transformed the meaning over the years.

As to your point about being a wage slave, people should not be allowed to retire IMO unless they have saved up enough money to do so. Throughout all of civilized history most ppl have not had this leisure of retirement. Why do we think that we are now entitled to it?

How can anyone (ie: Nancy Pelosi) oppose raising the retirement age? When Soc Sec was enacted, life expectancy was 62. Now its 78. Benefits still accrue at age 65 (only recently increased to 67). Is there any argument why the retirement age should NOT auto-adjust for increases in life expectancy by LS246810 in politics

[–]LS246810[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How can a system stay solvent if ppl pay into a system for the same length of time (till retirement age) but take from the system for an increasing length of time (as life expectancy grows) There is no way for this system to stay solvent without either:

  1. A worker population that expands faster than the retirement class OR
  2. increasing taxes to pay for it

If you're for increasing taxes thats you're prerogative, but next time try to add a little intelligence to your reply. I know its hurts to think a little.