Swindlers will be swindlers, in this case aided and abetted by those who ought to be against them!
7
If a person earning $50k per year pays, say, $10k in taxes and the "greedy 1%" earns $1 million per year and pays taxes of $200k (by using legal tax strategies to avoid paying $400k), has our high-earner paid his "fair share"? In absolute dollars his $200k payment to the tax man is 20 times more than our lower earner. Has the higher earner used 20x's more of the services federal and states depend on tax dollars for (roads & infrastructure, military, Medicare, etc) than the lower earner?
4
It is quite easy.
Figure out what it takes to run the government for a year. Savings included.
Then have each person pay an equal share, after deducting 2x poverty rate or some other agreed number.
That will fix the defict, some of the debt, and most of the whining.
Figure out what it takes to run the government for a year. Savings included.
Then have each person pay an equal share, after deducting 2x poverty rate or some other agreed number.
That will fix the defict, some of the debt, and most of the whining.
3
Yes,NYT,states competing to "shelter" the greedy hoarding of the 1%,and the feeble "were looking into it"response of the federal government certainly means that ........both state and federal governments are not representative,accountable,or responsive to the 90%of Americans who pay their tax dues and dont( and cant) use the "white shoed"lawyers and accountants to chisel away revenue America needs to operate.
Do you dare,NYT,to introduce to Americans the DEMOCRACY IN EUROPE MOVEMENT(DieM25)which is a popular movement for translucent PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY against a similarly "owned" and unepresentative European Commission and European Central Bank.How about an op-ed peace on a potential solution for the financial inequality,,,,,,,that you exposed in this article NYT"?
Do you dare,NYT,to introduce to Americans the DEMOCRACY IN EUROPE MOVEMENT(DieM25)which is a popular movement for translucent PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY against a similarly "owned" and unepresentative European Commission and European Central Bank.How about an op-ed peace on a potential solution for the financial inequality,,,,,,,that you exposed in this article NYT"?
5
This article is on the one hand no surprise. On the other, it is yet one more exposure of the cancers of inequality that are plaguing not just the U.S. but Humanity. The "very to the super wealthy", people who used to be called Royalty or The Quality and are now known as the 1% have always, like the poor been with us. The so called poor are, of course, an unavoidable effect of the rapacious greed, love of luxury, and sense of superiority, the sense of separateness, of being a superior breed of human being, that dominates the consciousness of this segment of humanity.
In former times, the wealth and power, for the two are inseparable, was generated by their total owner ship of everything. That is everything including all of the human beings were the property of which ever group of individuals happened to be in control. They did not have to worry about paying taxes; they levied taxes on the non-owners or "subjects".
Since then Humanity has made some small progress in correcting these insanities. However, the ancestors of the individual families who were the Quality of those days and are in many cases the 1% of today, are very busy protecting their owned assets. They have always been very skilled in protecting their "assets" from the lesser beings.
The solution: absolute limits on the amount of personal property or assets of any kind that one individual or "family" can hold, non of which can be inherited by anyone but is returned to the "float".
In former times, the wealth and power, for the two are inseparable, was generated by their total owner ship of everything. That is everything including all of the human beings were the property of which ever group of individuals happened to be in control. They did not have to worry about paying taxes; they levied taxes on the non-owners or "subjects".
Since then Humanity has made some small progress in correcting these insanities. However, the ancestors of the individual families who were the Quality of those days and are in many cases the 1% of today, are very busy protecting their owned assets. They have always been very skilled in protecting their "assets" from the lesser beings.
The solution: absolute limits on the amount of personal property or assets of any kind that one individual or "family" can hold, non of which can be inherited by anyone but is returned to the "float".
14
Should be illegal.
11
Need intelligent response by gov. here. Inequality is destructive to all of us. Perhaps we should encourage these people to live outside the US and forgo US citizenship. Extreme wealth obsessed with hoarding is like a disease.
9
I usually read the comments and don't contribute. As to this topic I need to comment as I have been involved in asset protection field since the early 2000s and
have spoken at many seminars concerning this matter.
What the article fails to mention and what the the Harvard Professor fails to mention is that if you are not a resident of the state where the trust is created the trust may be found null and void by the state where the grantor resides.
As such the article is somewhat misleading in that one must be a resident of the states mentioned to fully enjoy the protection afforded.
Best
GVC Esq.
WPB FL.
561 531 3723
please edit for clarity if you decide to publish this. I am dictating this on my phone. Thank you
have spoken at many seminars concerning this matter.
What the article fails to mention and what the the Harvard Professor fails to mention is that if you are not a resident of the state where the trust is created the trust may be found null and void by the state where the grantor resides.
As such the article is somewhat misleading in that one must be a resident of the states mentioned to fully enjoy the protection afforded.
Best
GVC Esq.
WPB FL.
561 531 3723
please edit for clarity if you decide to publish this. I am dictating this on my phone. Thank you
9
Mr. Cornell is correct. While these trusts work for the residents of a state that has adopted asset protection legislation and permit self-settled trusts if the statutory requirements are met - absent fraud against creditors - they might not work to protect the assets of a trust created by a non-resident of such state. It might very well be that the public policy of the non-resident's state (by not adopting asset protection legislation and not permitting self-settled trusts) trumps the full, faith and credit clause and will prevail in a conflict of laws situation as to which state's law should apply. It is simply too early to tell, but cases will eventually be rendered on the issue, one way or another. Time will tell.
2
Prenups, protected by our courts, are also only used by the wealthy so they can "use her, abuse her" (or him) and use as a club over her head to keep her in line - and then to keep her as poor as she was when they entered the so-called "marriage" in case she steps out of line. People can say what they will about why she was so stupid to enter into one, no doubt at the "advice" of his smooth talking lawyer, but the bottom line is it's nothing more than a form of exploitation - invented and protected by our government for the benefit of wealthy men who want the daughters of those less fortunate in this world.
7
So that this nation "of the rich, by the rich, for the rich" shall not perish from the earth.
21
The phrase, "Taking a knife to a gunfight," comes to mind. The lawyers and lobbyists and think-tank phrase makers at the disposal of the rich never rest. If they lose a battle this year, they are fighting the same battle with different slogans next year. The legislators need lots of money to stay in office, and the reverse is true: get out of line and the money funds their opponent. (See Bob Inglis) The attention and understanding of the populace is naive and easily manipulated, particularly at the state level where nobody knows or comprehends what is happening until it is too late. Witness the millions of Trumpsters convinced it's the progressives who are their enemy, and would elect another team of trickle downers to run the country. It is difficult to see how we dismantle the fortress of Oligarchy that is now well armed and heavily defended.
19
If the 99,9% knew the details of dynasty trusts, the trusts would be taxable, if not totally illegal. I am surprised that Senator Bernie Sanders said so little about our American aristocracy.
The average working person does not realize how rich the super wealthy are.
The average working person does not realize how rich the super wealthy are.
33
Ironic that the states with wide open spaces and low population (and some with frigid temperatures - NH, South Dakota and Alaska) are the ones seeking to be tax havens. Obviously places that have predominately rich people, New York and California (and the most liberal) are not tax havens. Interesting that many of the Forbes 400 reside in New York City for their primary residences, although some are hedge funders and have to be close to the industry that they participate in.
The newest and youngest Forbes 400 are tech inventors who live in California. Recent NY Times articles about $2000 dinners in San Francisco and Editorials (including obligatory hand wringing) describing wealth inequality came to mind.
Wonder what would happen to retail, tourism and the local Real Estate market, along with tax revenues if all the rich people in NYC decided to pull up stakes and move to South Dakota (make it the new Sun Valley) or New Hampshire.
The newest and youngest Forbes 400 are tech inventors who live in California. Recent NY Times articles about $2000 dinners in San Francisco and Editorials (including obligatory hand wringing) describing wealth inequality came to mind.
Wonder what would happen to retail, tourism and the local Real Estate market, along with tax revenues if all the rich people in NYC decided to pull up stakes and move to South Dakota (make it the new Sun Valley) or New Hampshire.
1
"What would happen if all the rich people in NYC decided to . . . move to New Hampshire?"
But they won't. As splendid as the White Mountains are, they can't compete with life in New York City -- at least, for those whose castles are in the sky, who can afford cabs everywhere, and whose 2-3 kids attend good private schools.
As for middle- and working-class New Yorkers: They might like the $150,000 homes that are, so to speak, a dime a dozen in New Hampshire, but the winters are icy and the springtime tick-infested. And thanks to outsourcing, jobs have dried up.
We New Yorkers are a soft race of people.
But they won't. As splendid as the White Mountains are, they can't compete with life in New York City -- at least, for those whose castles are in the sky, who can afford cabs everywhere, and whose 2-3 kids attend good private schools.
As for middle- and working-class New Yorkers: They might like the $150,000 homes that are, so to speak, a dime a dozen in New Hampshire, but the winters are icy and the springtime tick-infested. And thanks to outsourcing, jobs have dried up.
We New Yorkers are a soft race of people.
9
Has there ever been a standalone bill that gave these "people" their tax evasion?
6
Inherited wealth over hundreds of years will strangle creativity, is unfair, against the values of the US and will likely lead to revolution sometime in the future. The nobility system has not worked well for Europe nor for the old hide bound Emperor system in China. These systems are also at odds with our economic system and its philosophical underpinnings which allow wealth to accrue based on real-time opportunities. Our system can be used to justify vast fortunes based on exploitation of opportunities in the Market Place but there is no place for inherited wealth in such a system nor the idle rich that it produces. The very wealthy Andrew Carnegie knew this and wrote against the creation of an inherited aristocracy a century ago; he gave most of his fortune away.
17
Part of the problem is that too often many politicians and the governments that they create think that the government owns everything and just lets people use it for a while.
4
meaningless! Who does "own everything" if not the human beings who inhabit this planet? Certainly not the 1%.
3
Wall Street mega funds and their owner- managers,dont pay any income tax but have a special loophole called "carried interest" which turns income tax into capital gains tax(less than half of the income tax rate) which can be further eroded through offshore tax shelters, multiple corporate and individual partnerships,Bermuda corporations set as tax shelters posing as legitimate corporations seeking investment,
This complex financial maze is mostly "legal",the 1% and the "aspiring"next 4%,own and control the politicians and lawyers that are supposed to protect and preserve the American citizens from erosion and misuse of public income,The next" aspiring" 10% of Americans support this "save the rich" financial scheme (because as described by Keynes that the capitalist system needs greed and envy to survive)because they expect to reach the top 1%
Like allopathic medicine today,the NYT usually describes symptoms of social ills,but rarely goes to the root of causes or solutions.
This complex financial maze is mostly "legal",the 1% and the "aspiring"next 4%,own and control the politicians and lawyers that are supposed to protect and preserve the American citizens from erosion and misuse of public income,The next" aspiring" 10% of Americans support this "save the rich" financial scheme (because as described by Keynes that the capitalist system needs greed and envy to survive)because they expect to reach the top 1%
Like allopathic medicine today,the NYT usually describes symptoms of social ills,but rarely goes to the root of causes or solutions.
7
Trump's plan is to reduce the size of government so that it will no longer have any control over state-sponsored distribution of wealth. This is a libertarian plan, pure and simple. He and his rich friends tell us that the government has too much control over our lives, but think about the alternative. Do you want to rely on Trump and his friends, without any transparency or oversight, to have the control over education, social security, infrastructure, the military? All of those things are brought to the people through strong government. Yes, it does have its failings and bureaucracy is often seen as one of them. Bureaucracy, though, is largely due to an attempt at transparency so that the people maintain control over how spending decisions are made. Whenever the private sector whines about bureaucracy, they're really whining about the rules that make spending transparent.
Think about a country where all the financial decisions are made by the private sector, without oversight. That's Trump's vision.
Think about a country where all the financial decisions are made by the private sector, without oversight. That's Trump's vision.
16
With the headlong rush of laws--and lawyers--catering to a very small minority of Americans, and cracks appearing in the political party which purveyed the fallacy of "trickle-down," the stage is being set for a second American revolution. It's only a matter of time...
6
As much as a separation of powers between State and Federal governments helps to iron out the massive geography of America, it also happens to distort trade within the Union. When corporations and individuals can negotiate tax breaks, preferential loans and labour legislation from State and municipal governments, the well-being of the many is auctioned off to the benefit of the few.
Who benefits from having income sheltered from spousal support orders? Deadbeat dads that can afford to pay a lawyer and accountant to hide their money. While the Feds may not have authority over trusts, they could certainly start making the reporting requirements for these trusts in states without an agreement with the IRS very expensive and onerous, the question is whether any politician or bureaucrat would have the guts to inconvenience their campaign donors in such a way.
Who benefits from having income sheltered from spousal support orders? Deadbeat dads that can afford to pay a lawyer and accountant to hide their money. While the Feds may not have authority over trusts, they could certainly start making the reporting requirements for these trusts in states without an agreement with the IRS very expensive and onerous, the question is whether any politician or bureaucrat would have the guts to inconvenience their campaign donors in such a way.
41
It does no good to resort to name-calling, such as "parasite" and "bottom-feeder", except as a release valve for the justifiable rage felt by the 99%. Sociopaths (and I use this term in its dictionary definition, not as an epithet) are immune to such criticism; they are unable to grasp the simple humanity of "others".
The only solution is to allow absolutely NO private or corporate money to enter our political system. All elections should be fully funded by the taxpayers, so that when politicians construct legislation, their only consideration will be what best benefits those who sign their checks, i.e. we the people.
The only solution is to allow absolutely NO private or corporate money to enter our political system. All elections should be fully funded by the taxpayers, so that when politicians construct legislation, their only consideration will be what best benefits those who sign their checks, i.e. we the people.
14
Harry Reid and Joe Biden, those stalwarts of public service and champions of common man hail from the great states of Nevada and Delaware. Don't bother them though, they are busy in fighting social justice battles. Economic issues and wholesale plunder don't concern them, because after all campaign contributions have to come somewhere! Same with empress in waiting.
8
There are 2 parties of the wealthy. They both believe that the wealth of the upper crust benefits the rest of us, generating revenues and jobs. The view is hard to refute. There is no healthy economy absent capital in the hands of the wealthy. Republicans are proud to speak of this Democrats are circumspect. But until and unless there is a new and novel economic theory, subsidies to the wealthy will remain par for the course.
2
But the wealth doesn't have to be as concentrated as it is here. The Scandinavian countries have per capita GDP equal or greater than ours (very healthy economies,) yet their wealth is much more evenly distributed.
7
Still the best country in the world.
Lots of negative comments from envious people.
I work around opulence all day at work, I'm employed by a wealthy man. He's worked hard and earned it, he wants to keep it. Who is he obligated to share it with? Me......you?
No, that's not how it works, if that's what you want, leave the US. Plenty of third world socialist countries to run to.
Find an airport or work harder and quit complaining.
Lots of negative comments from envious people.
I work around opulence all day at work, I'm employed by a wealthy man. He's worked hard and earned it, he wants to keep it. Who is he obligated to share it with? Me......you?
No, that's not how it works, if that's what you want, leave the US. Plenty of third world socialist countries to run to.
Find an airport or work harder and quit complaining.
7
The Scandinavians would be appalled at being labelled "third world" if they weren't busy rolling their eyes and laughing at our stupidity.
7
you have worked hard too.does the work you have done deserve less than the work your master has done?
2
Disturbing. Disgusting. Depraved. Demented. Destabilizing.
7
If you are a millionaire and foolish enough to get married you should lose it all.
4
Two words: Prenuptial Agreement.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
2
"The federal government leaves it to each state to draw up its own trust laws..."
Really? I thought it was the US Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, and more generally federalism that accomplushed the respective prerogatives between the states and the federal government.
Really? I thought it was the US Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, and more generally federalism that accomplushed the respective prerogatives between the states and the federal government.
4
Everyone should be paying their fair share of taxes. Shelters in Cayman Islands, etc. should not be allowed. People caught should be fined greatly. However, the one percent is a very small percentage of our population. Contrary to the rhetoric, the top one percent's additional taxes will not make this country financially sound or erase our 19 trillion debt. Perhaps politicians should think up another idea.
4
who do you thin owns that 19 trillion debt?
1
What, the 1% aren't trickling down their money to create more jobs in the U.S.? Who'd a thunk it.
13
A great deal of conversation about taxes... I'm more concerned with those who run from child support, responsibility to spouses and those they hurt.
Trust for disabled needs to be done well across the USA and laws, rights to education, medicine are all highly volatile. From one who made the decisions on where to live work and retire so my child would have the strongest rights - I am blessed to have the ability to move and do this. Many people do not realize how awful states rights are in this area.
Trust for disabled needs to be done well across the USA and laws, rights to education, medicine are all highly volatile. From one who made the decisions on where to live work and retire so my child would have the strongest rights - I am blessed to have the ability to move and do this. Many people do not realize how awful states rights are in this area.
6
This is what happens when our "elected representatives' sell their souls to the highest bidder.
9
You can't expect Government to do anything about this, or even tighten the rules, because Government is in on it. Our elected officials can engage in insider trading. They can get away with a range of activities that would illegal for the rest of us. They can even smoke in their offices. They make rules for us that don't apply to them. The game is rigged for the 1% and the political elite. They select and pay for the politicians who represent them, backed by lawyers and lobbyists, and the rest of us get the crumbs, or worse. While Trump is not the answer, Hillary has done very well by this system and her friends in the C-suite can rest easy knowing she'll do nothing to disrupt the status quo.
4
These trusts are often more trouble than they're worth. What you save in taxes, you end up paying in fees to lawyers and accountants. The federal tax code is so complex, it is easy for somebody to make a mistake and accidentally create a huge tax lability.
2
"Yet even as more and more states seek ways to help the richest Americans protect their wealth from creditors, divorcing spouses and children, as well as some federal and state tax collectors...."
This doesn't go far enough. More and more states seek ways to help the *world's richest* protect their wealth..." Forget Panama. America is the world's biggest abettor of tax evasion and fraud.
This doesn't go far enough. More and more states seek ways to help the *world's richest* protect their wealth..." Forget Panama. America is the world's biggest abettor of tax evasion and fraud.
32
Just another reason to despise this country for what it has become....anything and everything for the few that have it all ...at the expense of so many that have so little.
119
If this gets you upset often, you'd have a healthier life living somewhere else. Life is too short already. But you WILL miss capitalism.
4
So, move to a "workers paradise" such as Cuba or Venezuela.
1
My wife and I used NH's modern laws to create a long-term trust that instructs our trustee (a kind and good lawyer) to take care of our developmentally disabled child after we die. The trust laws allowed siblings to serve as "protectors" to ensure our wishes are carried out. They can be proud of their protector role without bearing a crushing financial burden that might cause them to resent their sibling. The trust will pay federal income tax. I think some of the commenters here would be wise to research the laws before they posit inaccurate descriptions of the laws. Thanks to the bipartisan group of legislators in NH who have supported this decade-long modernization of our laws, our family has an opportunity for a more secure and safe future.
27
As a parent for a special adult child- Michigan also has great trust laws for this situation. Just saying you don't have to protect those who are running from their duties or paranoid about spouses to protect those you love.
3
I'm just curious...what's to stop the other siblings from using the trust fund money for something other than the care of the disabled child? Your reasoning sounds valid, but it seems as though a lot of other trusts are simply set up to avoid taxation. In Canada we don't have a death tax but an inheritance is generally treated as income. Two sides of the same coin in some respects, but more fair in many other ways.
It is my opinion based on years of living in and doing business in and around Nevada that you should completely avoid the place if at all possible and do not do business with any corporations registered there.
17
some folks think the same about doing business as a nonresident of texas and california. you got to pay your dues!
3
I still prefer the 1% over the lazy takers.
9
Many of the one percent are lazy takers.
36
And the difference?
10
Clearly you are blissfully unaware that the 1% are the biggest takers of them all. And their level of entitlement is off the charts.
26
It's a jungle out there among states that sell their soul for tax breaks. As these states fall over themselves to provide sweetheart deals for developers and big businesses, free estate tax rides and zero income tax to fat cats, the results are woefully underfunded school systems, crumbling infrastructure, disdain for anyone in public service, uneven policing, and a resentment of collectively bargained wages. Resources have to come from somewhere to provide infrastructure, schools, courts, and handle the rainy day and we should all pay our fair share from sea to shining sea. By welcoming the deadbeat wealthy to a few shady states, everybody loses in what should be one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
41
Nevada competing with Delaware to protect the 1%? Mr. Vice President? Are you listening?
21
Biden has been listening to the Duponts all of his career in Delaware politics.
5
It's time for the federal government to set a uniform standard for all states and off-shore interests to block tax evasion and the use of trusts to shelter wealthy individuals.
The drive to personal gain is only one component of what motivates creative and high functioning individuals to create wealth within a society--others such as service to community, or a drive to establish to efficiency and beauty of one's own design are just as strong within other individuals. However, these useful drives are not harnessed by our laws, or socially accepted business conventions in the way that personal gain is. It is high time we as a society rebalance our laws and establish new conventions to take advantage of these strong drivers of innovation and social wealth--and STOP CATERING to a single viewpoint that celebrates and justifies increasing levels of personal greed.
The drive to personal gain is only one component of what motivates creative and high functioning individuals to create wealth within a society--others such as service to community, or a drive to establish to efficiency and beauty of one's own design are just as strong within other individuals. However, these useful drives are not harnessed by our laws, or socially accepted business conventions in the way that personal gain is. It is high time we as a society rebalance our laws and establish new conventions to take advantage of these strong drivers of innovation and social wealth--and STOP CATERING to a single viewpoint that celebrates and justifies increasing levels of personal greed.
72
Don't hold your breath, Anita Ung, waiting for the federal government to act. They have repeatedly balked at taxing hedge fund managers' income as income (instead of as capital gains); the thinking is: if we tax these "invaluable" investors at high rates, they will all abandon U.S. markets for greener pastures. Note: Hedge fund MANAGERS do not risk their own capital. Their annual incomes can be in the hundreds of millions. And they pay a lower tax rate than your cleaning lady.
3
When businesses get into a price war, the consumer benefits. When states get into a tax break and wealth-sheltering war, the wealthy benefit. Smart businesses work very hard to avoid price wars. States are stupid.
13
the politicians get the money--not the state taxpayers.
6
How states tax can make a 20% difference in the numbers of jobs in an surprisingly short time.
Wake up. State legislators are not stupid. They take the same bribes, ooops, I mean fully legal political donations and secret gifts and trips and jobs for spouses and offspring, that US senators & congresspersons take. America, what a country!
1
As someone who dutifully pays all his taxes and has a fairly healthy effective rate, I am getting fed up with wealthy Americans and prosperous corporations doing anything they can to avoid paying their fair share. These people are the real "takers" and they are willing to destroy this country to put another Ferrari in the garage or a new wing on the mansion. They've managed to convince the masses that the welfare recipient's free cellphone is more of a boondoggle than, say, Mitt Romney's $100 million IRA or estate tax relief for the Waltons.
Meanwhile, the decent folks have to pay more to make up the difference. In return, we get the pleasure of crumbling infrastructure, underfunded schools, jam packed airport security lines and other indignities. Of course, we all know what Leona Helmsley had to say about the situation.
Meanwhile, the decent folks have to pay more to make up the difference. In return, we get the pleasure of crumbling infrastructure, underfunded schools, jam packed airport security lines and other indignities. Of course, we all know what Leona Helmsley had to say about the situation.
235
They tell us they are the ones who create all the jobs so the rest of us can make money too.
It really isn't that hard. Tax advantages need to be given to the poor only. The wealthy have already received their advantage. We need a robust estate tax and no tax shelters or trusts. That's all.
33
Another spectacular example of why the US is teetering on being a failed state - a few people who are far too rich, who are social and economic parasites, and who are encouraged and abetted in their parasitism by laws and exemptions from laws that allow them to avoid paying their fair share into the upkeep and maintenance of the society that makes their obscene wealth possible. As I said, parasites. If the US does not wake up and curb these people and begin to tax them and extract their undeserved wealth at a level commensurate with what is necessary to benefit everyone, then revolutionary change is the next step. And revolution almost always means violence.
26
You're asking our politicians to wake up and equalize our bizarre tax laws that do indeed favor the 1%? Have you not noted that over the years our Politicians have joined the 1%? I might add that they are just as interested in equally protecting their many ill gotten gains.
4
"Undeserved wealth" I'd like to know how you've determined that these people don't deserve what they've worked or invested for.
Benefit everyone? You mean the freeloaders who get pregnant or impregnate someone, drop out of school, do whatever to make money and not pay taxes, living in subsidized housing, eating subsidized food, Being "refunded" taxes they never paid, getting free medical care? Even the ones who aren't supposed to be here? Or the ones in other countries?
No thanks. Create more ways for working people to keep what they legitimately earn. Let the Federal Reserve keep printing up those fiat dollars and loan it to the government. It's all a house of cards and it will collapse one day. And when the revolution comes it will hopefully sweep out this corrupt governing system and the people running it.
Benefit everyone? You mean the freeloaders who get pregnant or impregnate someone, drop out of school, do whatever to make money and not pay taxes, living in subsidized housing, eating subsidized food, Being "refunded" taxes they never paid, getting free medical care? Even the ones who aren't supposed to be here? Or the ones in other countries?
No thanks. Create more ways for working people to keep what they legitimately earn. Let the Federal Reserve keep printing up those fiat dollars and loan it to the government. It's all a house of cards and it will collapse one day. And when the revolution comes it will hopefully sweep out this corrupt governing system and the people running it.
3
Washington State wins hands down. We have more new multi-millionaires and billionaires than can be counted and they got filthy rich through federal/state/county/city government grants and tax breaks. "Economic Development" money and other resources are used for corporate tax breaks and grants for "research and development", which turn into profit for academic and corporate profiteers. They might call us a blue state but our "leaders" are not providing the historic social infrastructure we once enjoyed. Gary Locke was one of the first members of ALEC when he was governor, and gave away the first GIGANTIC tax break to Boeing, and other democrats have followed. It is time for "new" democrats and independents to take over and restore social livability for average people again. ALL lawmaker will serve the wealthiest if we let them because it's easy.
13
Washington State does not win hands down in this particular category but it certainly takes care of the top 1% global financial elite.
7
The problem here is not Evil-Rich-People and their Even-More-Evil Lawyers. These people are rationally self-insuring against risk in a country that won't protect its citizens from the worst vicissitudes of life.
Contrary to popular belief, most trusts do not provide for luxury living with no strings-attached cash flow. Many trusts have restricted purposes. A typical family trust might provide education funds and a social safety net for children and grandchildren. Child care (20k/yr?), a good education ($250k+), health care (is there a limit?) and long term care (90k-160K/yr), a home in a good school district (?)-- these things are nearly impossible to acquire without some intergenerational wealth transfer. Your country will not subsidize early childhood education. Your public schools and universities are struggling. Your elected officials will not go to single-payer health care. The private pension is dead. Nobody can care for the young and old when every family is dual-earner. This is what it means to be born in America today: you can work hard and never get a modicum of real financial security unless you have wealth. One job loss, one illness, one abusive or greedy spouse, one disabled child... one bad move or one stroke of bad luck and you're done for.
The wealthy have kids with problems too. The difference between the 1% and the rest is that they understand risk and can afford to self-insure for themselves and their progeny.
Contrary to popular belief, most trusts do not provide for luxury living with no strings-attached cash flow. Many trusts have restricted purposes. A typical family trust might provide education funds and a social safety net for children and grandchildren. Child care (20k/yr?), a good education ($250k+), health care (is there a limit?) and long term care (90k-160K/yr), a home in a good school district (?)-- these things are nearly impossible to acquire without some intergenerational wealth transfer. Your country will not subsidize early childhood education. Your public schools and universities are struggling. Your elected officials will not go to single-payer health care. The private pension is dead. Nobody can care for the young and old when every family is dual-earner. This is what it means to be born in America today: you can work hard and never get a modicum of real financial security unless you have wealth. One job loss, one illness, one abusive or greedy spouse, one disabled child... one bad move or one stroke of bad luck and you're done for.
The wealthy have kids with problems too. The difference between the 1% and the rest is that they understand risk and can afford to self-insure for themselves and their progeny.
20
What? No bootstraps?
6
Anon - who are you kidding? As currently structured, the estate tax allows a family to pass down over 10 million dollars of assets without paying one cent of tax. I think that is more than enough. This is about the greediest among us who have hoovered up all the goodies and don't wish to share. Our country is not about perpetuating this unlimited transfer of wealth for unending generations. Shame on these states competing to enable this greed.
26
Since real financial security is impossible here without wealth, the pursuit of wealth becomes more important, and one's wealth must be protected from providing financial security to others (via taxes on it) so it can provide financial security for you. Once this system is set up, it reproduces and reinforces itself and self-interest generates the values that perpetuate it.
If the people without financial security start getting upset, the problem will be handled if the white ones and the non-white ones, or the ones that went to college and the ones who didnt, can be tricked into fighting each other.
If the people without financial security start getting upset, the problem will be handled if the white ones and the non-white ones, or the ones that went to college and the ones who didnt, can be tricked into fighting each other.
7
There was a time when I believed that this country would be able to work out some reasonable, middle of the road solution to income inequality and balance of power between the wealthy and the rest. Unfortunately, it appears that any levelling will need to come down to knit tri color caps and guillotines. Tired of being told I should eat cake...
35
lets understand that the rich bribe the politicians in the federal and state governments to give the rich ways to pass more money to their kids who do not wish to work or their parents do not THINK they are capable of earning their own living. what the parents do not realize is that they might just as well break their kid's legs---do not give them an opportunity to earn self respect. ego building won't get the job done.
5
When one reads these comments one understands why the wealth needs to be protected.
10
Perhaps you'd like a return of the Jacobins?
7
Yes, the evil manipulative 1%, and their state government lackeys.
According to Politifact, judging a statement made by Jeb Bush last year, the top 1% took 17% of all income in 2015, and paid 44% of federal income taxes. Factoring in payroll, estate, and other taxes, the top 1% paid 28% of all taxes.
Based on CBO data from 2013, and also accounting for federal transfer payments, the top 1% of households paid 25% off all federal taxes, the top 10% paid 55%, and the top 20% paid 70%. The lower 60% of households earned 32% of after-tax income and paid a total of 13% of all taxes.
Can we try using numbers instead of rhetoric and emotion?
According to Politifact, judging a statement made by Jeb Bush last year, the top 1% took 17% of all income in 2015, and paid 44% of federal income taxes. Factoring in payroll, estate, and other taxes, the top 1% paid 28% of all taxes.
Based on CBO data from 2013, and also accounting for federal transfer payments, the top 1% of households paid 25% off all federal taxes, the top 10% paid 55%, and the top 20% paid 70%. The lower 60% of households earned 32% of after-tax income and paid a total of 13% of all taxes.
Can we try using numbers instead of rhetoric and emotion?
8
That's because that is how wealth is distributed. Actually the top .01% have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population combined. Cry me a river.
8
The numbers would show that the wealthy are lucky and the poor are not. The market may be the market but that doesn't make it just, or equitable, or moral. It is simply the way the market works, and the rules of the market are influenced much more by the wealthy than the poor.
I, for one, hope never to have to live through a French revolution or a communist revolution, nor do I want to live in a banana republic, so public policy needs to aimed at reducing wealth inequality wherever practical. The death tax (I embrace the term) is a perfect example. When better to tax a person that when they cannot feel the sting (even if their descendants can feel it).
As the previous writer said, cry me a river.
I, for one, hope never to have to live through a French revolution or a communist revolution, nor do I want to live in a banana republic, so public policy needs to aimed at reducing wealth inequality wherever practical. The death tax (I embrace the term) is a perfect example. When better to tax a person that when they cannot feel the sting (even if their descendants can feel it).
As the previous writer said, cry me a river.
8
They do not pay taxes on HIDDEN wealth or business expenses, Bob Krantz. Fact.
9
So marijuana is covered by federal laws but you can hide money behind state's rights.
12
Our greed-based health care system is leading many, including myself, to seek ways to avoid our entire savings being depleted by end-of-life medical care. The government is making it harder for most of us, apparently even placing liens on the homes of seniors so proceeds from our estates can be "clawed back" after death.
12
"Phantom threats", right .... and politicians aren't crooks.
2
Inheritance should not be allowed. It just makes the heirs lazy and dependent on the trust. They should have to work their way up in the world like the rest of us do. So many of us here in America have to struggle because the wealthy pay our legislatures to keep minimum wages, food assistance and welfare programs below what a child needs to live in a safe neighborhood and have access to good nutrition and great schools. I think all of our lives would improve if we no longer had trust fund babies.
11
So you want everyone to spend all of their money in their lifetime and have no savings. That would be an economy killer and hurt the bottom 99% a lot more than the "lazy" kids you want to punish.
You should not be allowed to buy a car. You have to invent the wheel, move to a buggy and then invent the internal combustion engine, gears and transmission, figure out an assembly line and then if you are still alive, you will have a model T to drive in.
I don't know too many happy wealthy people or lawyers, and I know a lot of wealthy people and lawyers. They pursue stuff like cause life has run out of interesting things to do. It is true misery loves company and what great places Delaware and Nevada are.
5
The state Legislators certainly know how to get campaign money, don't they?
17
I should be shocked, but our elected officials are beholden to the deep pockets of their campaign donors rather than the people they truly represent. We are becoming "The Hunger Games".
10
My family while not wealthy are not hurting. When my mother passes I and my siblings will each receive a seven figure inheritance that has been sheltered in a trust in Tennessee. My parents moved there late in the years to avoid us having to pay inheritance taxes. Neither I nor any of my siblings are millionaires, and receiving the benefits of our parent's hard work and saving for decades shouldn't be penalized by either the federal or state governments. If our parent's hadn't planned wisely we would be hit for at least 40% of our inheritances in taxes from our home state.
Democrats are some of the biggest offenders in hiding wealth overseas. The Kennedys come to mind in this hypocrisy. I notice no one in the liberal media ever attacks them, George Soros or any other liberal democrat billionaires as being stingy or a crook. Why is that, are they inoculated from criticism because they are angels or because they are democrats ? Why are only Republicans on the radar for not giving enough when in fact many of them are the biggest philanthropists in the world. They just don't announce it to the press like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.
Democrats are some of the biggest offenders in hiding wealth overseas. The Kennedys come to mind in this hypocrisy. I notice no one in the liberal media ever attacks them, George Soros or any other liberal democrat billionaires as being stingy or a crook. Why is that, are they inoculated from criticism because they are angels or because they are democrats ? Why are only Republicans on the radar for not giving enough when in fact many of them are the biggest philanthropists in the world. They just don't announce it to the press like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.
4
People who inherit 9.99 million dollars can afford to be charitable.
1
Anyone can establish a trust to benefit their children, grandchildren, and so on, and protect those assets from the grandchild's creditors. This is uncontroversial.
Why should only those who *inherit* wealth be able to benefit from such a creditor-proof trust?
In other words, why shouldn't the self-made doctor, psychiatrist, entrepreneur, or lawyer be able to protect some of their assets to some degree through a self-settled asset protection trust? Why should only the beneficiaries of inherited, inter-generational wealth be able to shield their assets? No one would question these people for operating their businesses as LLCs - so why should only the beneficiaries of inherited, inter-generational wealth be able to shield some of their personal assets?
Why should only those who *inherit* wealth be able to benefit from such a creditor-proof trust?
In other words, why shouldn't the self-made doctor, psychiatrist, entrepreneur, or lawyer be able to protect some of their assets to some degree through a self-settled asset protection trust? Why should only the beneficiaries of inherited, inter-generational wealth be able to shield their assets? No one would question these people for operating their businesses as LLCs - so why should only the beneficiaries of inherited, inter-generational wealth be able to shield some of their personal assets?
4
So the Republican legislatures are spending more time to protect the wealth of the 1% than they are passing and implementing policies or laws that will decrease the poverty level. And yes, they say they are pro-family. Well, if the families that elect them allow them to do it and remain in office, then those families probably get exactly what they deserve. Sadly, some other families who don't elect them will be harmed in the process.
11
sounds like organized crime is alive and well in some states.
21
Probably why the Romneys and Marriotts are residents of New Hampshire!
20
Sounds like these tactics are necessary for states that are nothing but holes in the ground with no industry and low education/income levels that need some "sugar daddies" to prop them up.
God forbid that one would need to build something worthwhile to be someplace where people want to live.
God forbid that one would need to build something worthwhile to be someplace where people want to live.
10
States openly discuss whether their regulations to protect the rich should or should not prevent an ex-spouse from collecting outstanding child support payments. The fact that this appears in such a matter of fact way in this piece disgusts me. And why should a regulation ever prohibit kids from being supported by their parent? This is just beyond...is there any morality left?
148
It's probably because the kids will inherit the trust someday and that they are not living in a trailer park and going to public school.
1
No there isn't. If there were, Donald Trump could never have received the Republican nomination and stand a chance of becoming President.
7
Sleazy states and unpatriotic citizens racing to the bottom.
27
Rich people who don't pay their fair share of taxes are ruining this country by hoarding the wealth, not putting it back in play. More taxes, better government services, better help for small businesses, more money for public universities, more money in the hands of the rest of us make a better country. Stop the shrinking of the middle class, shrink wealth inequity.
These greedy rich people make me sick.
These greedy rich people make me sick.
33
Patsy
I'm sorry you do not feel well. I feel great. My financial advisor and lawyer told me.
I'm sorry you do not feel well. I feel great. My financial advisor and lawyer told me.
3
Keep that empathy flowing. Wealthy people are stingy with that, too.
2
The trouble with law is lawyers." (Clarence Darrow)
15
It is distressing that so many US citizens with huge wealth don't want to pay taxes. Why are they not interested in helping to pay for infrastructure, security, protecting open space, education, health care, etc etc? They are willing to expend time, money and energy to avoid being good citizens. None of us wants to throw money away, but if we want to keep our country livable we have to pay taxes, just like you have to pay for lots of other things. Criticizing government for not being perfect is the typical excuse people use who are not prepared to be responsible citizens.
182
Because they don't care about America. Isn't that obvious. The only loyalty they have is to their money. They'd curse god if he told them to give it all away. They hate America, they hate all of us little fools and they need to be stripped of all assets save $100 and sent packing to live in a hut in the jungle. No reward for those caught doing evil!
1
Because their funds were already taxed by federal and state agencies.
Don't be silly. The rich already pay a vast amount in taxes to support the lazy and the stupid.
It is distressing to ME that it's the people who pay zero income taxes who complain that the rich aren't paying their "fair" share.
Who wants to pay even more for futile wars and college education for illegal immigrants. To give just two examples.
It is distressing to ME that it's the people who pay zero income taxes who complain that the rich aren't paying their "fair" share.
Who wants to pay even more for futile wars and college education for illegal immigrants. To give just two examples.
In my neighboring state in Idaho across the river, I note they are not only famous for their potatoes but also for the percentage of millionaires among their population. They do this not necessarily through the old fashioned way, by earning it, but by making sure their Reddist of Red State legislators keep in place more tax exemptions (primarily favoring the rich, of course) then the total amount of their state taxes. Their educational system, roads and the availability of health care for their poorest citizens suffer as consequence. But hey, maybe Idaho's wealthy and their minions in the State legislature believe that its not up to them to provide their poor and working class citizens with anything but a ready access to a cheap and plentiful supply of potatoes.
35
Actually, Blaine County which has lots of millionaires and billionaires tends to be one of two counties in Idaho that regularly vote for Democrats! The schools could be better, but are probably among the best in Idaho and we do have St. Lukes which is a non profit hospital and clinic.
3
Funny Susan you mention St Lukes...St Lukes, the most profitable health care system in Idaho, was in fact recently found to be in violation of anti-competition and restraint of trade statues and assessed a whooping 26 million dollar judgment by Federal Judge Lynn Winmill. So yes, the Idahoans have several non-profit hospitals that their poor can access through their ER (which in fact is a federal condition for hospitals to remain "Non-Profits"), but no, the Idaho legislature has repeatedly refused to let 76,000 of Idaho's poorest citizens have access to the state Medicaid fund through their ACA mandated State run exchange. Just wondering which of the Idaho legislators walks through the front door of St Lukes when they need a doctor for a non emergent condition, and which of the legislators do you think wait in a St Luke's ER waiting room until an MD may become available?
Why don't the poor move to California New York or Massachusetts
If the Las Vegas attorney had to choose bankruptcy for a client it would give new meaning to Oshin's Eleven.
12
Anything over $2 million per dependent should be taxable. That's more than enough to put any child or widow on solid footing in the world. Use the tax receipts for educating the next generations. Who loses in this scenario? Only those members of the despicable tribe who make their fortunes off the USA but don't want to invest a fair share back into the USA.
38
was at a truck stop in southern missouri. overheard a discussion about cayman island tax shelters. is this a sign?
23
Yes
14
"was at a truck stop in southern missouri. overheard a discussion about cayman island tax shelters. is this a sign?"
Absolutely! Even the middle class has learned that it must use every legal means possible to avoid taxation that robs them of the ability to do with their earnings what they wish.
And the federal reserve can just keep printing money to pay for all those on the bottom who are there primarily because of their own actions. They don't care how deeply in debt the nation is more than the wealthy as long as the government teat milk keeps flowing.
Absolutely! Even the middle class has learned that it must use every legal means possible to avoid taxation that robs them of the ability to do with their earnings what they wish.
And the federal reserve can just keep printing money to pay for all those on the bottom who are there primarily because of their own actions. They don't care how deeply in debt the nation is more than the wealthy as long as the government teat milk keeps flowing.
2
Northlander may wonder if it is meth wealth that is inquiring of being protected from confiscation by a different form of federal tax authority. ;)
1
The rich need to have excess funds siezed and the million and up income per year bracket needs to be back at 70%.
33
Let's go back to Ike's days (Dwight Eisenhower) with the rate at 90%.
Those are the day the GOP loves to tell us were so great (except for this tiny detail among others).
Those are the day the GOP loves to tell us were so great (except for this tiny detail among others).
21
It was never at 70%. Those were nominal rates that almost nobody paid, because there were much broader deductions and exemptions back then.
2
Maryland tried a similar scheme a few years ago instituting a special tax on millionaires. Guess what? They all own houses in states with no income tax and Maryland actually collected less money.
Try it on a federal level and some nations will come up with a tax plan for expatriates perhaps even creating a special citizenship status for them.
Try it on a federal level and some nations will come up with a tax plan for expatriates perhaps even creating a special citizenship status for them.
1
"Free Stuff."
It's the same with every republican candidate; the first words out of their mouth: "Tax Cut!"
It's the same with every republican candidate; the first words out of their mouth: "Tax Cut!"
42
Thomas, there's really no difference in the party except the words out of their mouth. In the end both are protecting their donors.
1
And the first thing out of very liberal candidate: Raise taxes!
What else is new?
What else is new?
2
"It's the same with every republican candidate; the first words out of their mouth: "Tax Cut!"
And the first words out of the Democrat candidate's mouth is "More freebies"
And the first words out of the Democrat candidate's mouth is "More freebies"
I cannot believe the class warfare comments from The Times readers. Its all about the "evil, rich people", which obviously includes wealthy Democrats. Most of the negative comments probably come from readers who never started a business and become successful. Without trusts, the company that is worth $20 million would have to be sold when the owner and their spouse dies to pay estate taxes above the $10.5 million estate exclusion limit today (assuming the company passes to the spouse). The tax would be approximately $4 million. The children have to find this money if they want to keep the business running or sell to someone else.
This is hardly the incentive to keep and preserve businesses that create the majority of jobs in the USA. Most of the value of the business is tied up in the assets of the company, not some gigantic cash account. Yes, there are some trust fund kids who don't do much, but these people are few and far between. Keep these businesses in the hands of the creators and there successors, keep the jobs and eliminate the estate tax.
This is hardly the incentive to keep and preserve businesses that create the majority of jobs in the USA. Most of the value of the business is tied up in the assets of the company, not some gigantic cash account. Yes, there are some trust fund kids who don't do much, but these people are few and far between. Keep these businesses in the hands of the creators and there successors, keep the jobs and eliminate the estate tax.
12
What a great idea. Let some people not pay taxes that support the country that enabled them to have a business that is secure from nationalization, and benefits from the maintenance of infrastructure. And let their employees pay the taxes that allows their business to flourish.
22
Just a few trust fund kids...isn't that the whole problem? Billions of dollars, possibly trillions in the hands of just a few "kids". If the remaining 99% were doing well, then there's no problem. But we aren't! The lifestyle of the rich and famous is dragging us all under. Why does a wealthy sheik need 5000 cars? Why do billionaires own large chunks of South American countries? It's okay to be wealthy, frankly. But just how much does any one person need? Either we distribute the wealth through taxation or profit sharing.
22
Get real, this group of tax evaders are never happy until they have to pay no tax whatsoever. If any of them had any social/moral conscience at all, at least contribute to the society that allowed them the opportunity to build their wealth.
15
When your frustration or jealousy shifts to the Congress that wrote all these laws, just remember that Democrats ran the House every year since WWII except for about 12, and the Senate has been even more full of Democrats.
An Obama Rule for U.S. Troops on the ground: When an enemy stands up and points a weapon - even a rocket-propelled grenade! - at you, you can't shoot at him until after he launches the RPG at you. No kidding.
An Obama Rule for U.S. Troops on the ground: When an enemy stands up and points a weapon - even a rocket-propelled grenade! - at you, you can't shoot at him until after he launches the RPG at you. No kidding.
5
'An Obama Rule for U.S. Troops on the ground: When an enemy stands up and points a weapon - even a rocket-propelled grenade! - at you, you can't shoot at him until after he launches the RPG at you. No kidding.'
Please provide a citation for this. I have not ever heard this before from any soldier that has served in the ME. Await your response.
Please provide a citation for this. I have not ever heard this before from any soldier that has served in the ME. Await your response.
8
And it was in those 12 years when all the tax cutting occurred
5
Engagement rule. If the enemy fires on you and drops the gun and runs you cannot pursue him.
1
Good grief. Delaware, a haven for the Clintons?
Really?
Really.
Really?
Really.
3
And again - those at the bottom can only watch this game while being fed dreams of one day playing a part. But, I believe there are those out there who just want a decent paying job in a business that does not demand you turn over your 1st born child, a house and town in which to raise...kids, cats, dogs, whatever, safely. I don't want to be a millionaire - I don't know anyone who does. Where are the dreams of middle-America met when the actions of pop-stars, soulless gurus, and greedy money-men dominate the national conversation? There are those just want to live without fear of nuclear, financial, (or some other) annihilation. Why is that so damn hard!
41
That is precisely what Clinton's proposals are aimed at. When she said at the convention (but it's also in her proposals) that she wants people to be able to get good paying jobs without having to go to college, that she wants businesses that share profits with their workers to get tax credits for doing so, while those whose CEO pay are way out of proportion to what their companies' workers receive should be taxed more highly---sounds like a recipe for what you are asking for.
31
It is my hope she communicated the same message to the Wall Street fat cats to whom she spoke. She has my vote but, this being politics, I keep my fingers crossed and wish for an atheist ritual comparable to the Catholic lighting a candle of hope.
2
But it's okay for the tens of millions of deadbeats, free loaders and other Free Stuff people to let Uncle Sam pick up the bill for their rent, their food, their health insurance and every other imaginable Freebie which our Entitlement Nation now shells out to anyone and everyone claiming these 'benefits.
16
Boy, you sure live in the right state for your opinions.
14
When you think about it. Those poor freeloaders aren't getting but a tiny fraction of what the 1% crowd rakes in.
35
The richest 1% in the US now own more than the bottom 90%.
That's from Nick Kristof's "Idiots Guide to Inequality."
The Walmart heirs are wealthier than the bottom 40%. Perhaps if they paid their employees a living wage, that would help decrease the number of "freeloaders."
Those deadbeats include people working full-time jobs who need foodstamps to survive.
That's from Nick Kristof's "Idiots Guide to Inequality."
The Walmart heirs are wealthier than the bottom 40%. Perhaps if they paid their employees a living wage, that would help decrease the number of "freeloaders."
Those deadbeats include people working full-time jobs who need foodstamps to survive.
122
Big news - the super-wealthy hire cockroaches to hide their money from the tax authorities and courts of law. Gosh - why don't poor folks do the same?
Nice to see the backwater states fighting to compete with Third World countries. Meanwhile, in a country that enabled and protects great fortunes, these "high-netters" want to screw everyone - spouses, kids, states, feds and their fellow citizens. Precious.
P.S. - your article is fluff - who passes these laws and why? There's real dirt (and stories) in those piles of legislation.
Nice to see the backwater states fighting to compete with Third World countries. Meanwhile, in a country that enabled and protects great fortunes, these "high-netters" want to screw everyone - spouses, kids, states, feds and their fellow citizens. Precious.
P.S. - your article is fluff - who passes these laws and why? There's real dirt (and stories) in those piles of legislation.
86
But each states gets to decide what their tolerance for wealth is. If Maryland wants to have a tax JUST for millionaires, it can put in on the books.
That law resulted in even less money coming into the state because it chased owners & businesses away, but at least those Democrats got to try it.
Congrats to the states reaping business people immigrating from the People's Republic of California.
That law resulted in even less money coming into the state because it chased owners & businesses away, but at least those Democrats got to try it.
Congrats to the states reaping business people immigrating from the People's Republic of California.
7
Domer: "Pride goeth before a fall."
6
The article is right on the money. I am a Nevada CPA and very well aware of the excellent trust laws here. Forget the nonsense. You set up these irrevocable trusts to protect your children. There is no tax evasion involved. I set up a trust for my daughter. In the event we die our assets are protected against credit claims and spurious lawsuits. In fact I told my son in law that in the event of my daughter's death the irrevocable trust would provide him with nothing. The assets would go to charity. He was not happy about it. Nevada is the best place to have a trust. Remember that Nevada never signed a treaty with the IRS. It does not and will not exchange information with any state or the IRS. New York and New Jersey routinely share information with each other and the IRS. Nevada does not.
29
Please be more precise. Specifically, what "nonsense" should we "forget."
3
Look what a great man this inheritance made Trump.
3
Aw, that's really sweet of you, NVFisherman. Our country is increasingly reminiscent of Louis XVI's France.
2
Historically, at common law, no interest in property would be deemed valid if it did not vest within 21 years after the death of some person alive when the interest was created. This was known as the rule against perpetuities. The rule was one of the safeguards against the establishment of a permanent aristocracy, both here and in England. But aristocracy has a certain appeal, and those with money and power have found ways to perpetuate their dynasties. Twenty-nine states (at last count) have now either abolished or modified the rule to allow perpetual trusts or trust lasting as long a 365 years. Going forward, therefore, the bulk of our nation’s wealth will be controlled by men and women who have been dead for centuries. H
It is doubtful that our republic can survive with the bulk of the country’s wealth controlled by a permanent aristocracy. This trend has got to be reversed, and it cannot be left up to the states, which are continually racing to the bottom. The estate tax should be kept and expanded and the federal government should pass a national law against perpetuities.
It is doubtful that our republic can survive with the bulk of the country’s wealth controlled by a permanent aristocracy. This trend has got to be reversed, and it cannot be left up to the states, which are continually racing to the bottom. The estate tax should be kept and expanded and the federal government should pass a national law against perpetuities.
86
This is a horrible, immoral abuse of our patchwork system of state regulation that serves only to further impoverish our public sector and, by the way - how can I take advantage of it?
17
NH is a "wannabe" because they're unwilling to stoop so low as to keep money out of the hands of kids that need and deserve it? How awful it is that some states assume parents should care for their kids.
...Andrew
...Andrew
10
"We The Little" pay the taxes to support those greedy characters. The lawyers are just their courtiers contributing to make this nation unnerved and angry. Meanwhile politicians are busy in writing the next speech with, once again, a lot of empty promises to be sold to the rest of us.
18
Wait a sec - I thought the NY TIMES was here to make the nation unnerved and angry.
3
L’Osservatore, things look different from far (sic) Verona and in the thick atmosphere of Italian politics.
1
I can listen to WWL in New Orleans, WBBM in Chicago, one station in Denver and about 5 NPR stations out here.
2
Oh enough with the tisking! Yes, of course all these creatures and their errand boys and girls are despicable. The point is that this will all change the instant that a solid majority of Americans make up their minds to consistently vote against it. By some measures that day grows close: a majority of Americans don't object to the term "socialism", and more of us voted for a socialist this year than any year in history. By other measures, it may appear that we collectively grow stupider every year. Maybe the day will never come, and our grandchildren will scrounge from the dumpsters of the 20 families. But in all objective and reasonable consideration, I have to conclude that the second gilded age will end. And I don't believe a world war will be required this time. All it takes is 70M votes, every 2 years. Nothing can stand against that.
26
Great. Then we can all vote ourselves thinner and more interesting.
2
Don't get too close to the 1%. There's plenty of baskets available when heads start rolling.
1
"Nothing can stand against that."
No, it won't take a world war but you'll probably get a national one. Those who have something to protect are prepared to do so even to the point of hiring others to help them do it. It will make the wars before the Shoguns took power look like bar brawls.
No, it won't take a world war but you'll probably get a national one. Those who have something to protect are prepared to do so even to the point of hiring others to help them do it. It will make the wars before the Shoguns took power look like bar brawls.
1
Sad situation. The 0.1% have learned nothing from the last several years except that the taxpayers will bail them out when they get into trouble with their reckless fraud, gambling, and swindling with other people's money and not only will they not go to jail but they will get to keep their jobs and get ever richer with stolen money. Eventually of course there will be a day of reckoning that will likely make the French and Russian Revolutions look like a picnic, a day at the beach. Most of these super rich will lose everything they have "acquired" by questionable means in this country but also overseas since these globalists have deliberately intertwined economies everywhere so if the "big boy", i.e. the United States, goes under as it surely will crushed by government, corporate and private debt, de-industrialization, White collar crime, most other advanced economies will also collapse. They think they are clever and cunning now using tax shelters and shell companies to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and cheat their depositors, investors and customers but when it all collapses they will be left holding an empty bag. These billionaire brigands will learn the hard way within a few years that greed and exploitation lead only to ruin but it will be too late by then. The entire United States is on the brink of armed revolution and civil war and the wealthy continue to grab ever more wealth, the middle class is liquidated, and the poor's numbers explode. Let 'em eat cake!
37
Not so sure that we are on the brink of revolution, but I do agree that a day of reckoning is coming for the uber wealthy. It's happened before. The great families from the industrial era recognized the danger at the turn of the 20th century. They started setting up trust funds to ease poverty, improve education, health care etc. They were also the first generation to start paying income taxes. The current batch needs to come to the same realization. Except, I'm not all that keen on the trust fund thing because they get to pick their own pet projects. I favor taxation over contributions made to avoid taxation.
10
This is borderline conspiracy theory and rather questionable explanation as to the origins of revolution. Tone it down a bit and I can agree with your moral positions. We all, perhaps especially the rich, need to pay greater heed to Adam Smith's _The Theory of Moral Sentiments_. I do agree with you that the life of any civilization worth the description ain't just about money. I don't agree that most of the rich don't understand this. Those that don't need to be taken aside and have it explained to them, sometimes twice. Double negatives are sometimes the only way to provide perspective.
The middle class will probably side with the wealthy in the coming civil war. Why side with those who just take but provide no income for the middle class. I was in business for 30 years. I don't recall a single poor person who spent money with me. Plus the wealthy will be hiring people to protect them. After the disturbance the wealthy will continue to pay for protection from the people they hired and hopefully the poor will be gone completely.
Unfortunately, I think this is an accurate representation of the values of America, circa 2016. All that matters to anyone is money, money, money and how to screw over everyone else. Trump is just the guy for people who think this way...
36
Whether it be Hillary or Trump- Both of them will make sure this game continues- At least Trump doesn't hide his tax cut plans for the rich- Hillary does. She'll make a big hoopla over a 2% increase on those who earn over $1 million a year, but to do so she'll [quietly and in secret] lift the estate tax, that way the entire nation will become Delaware. Way go Hillary! You really care about us!
8
And on what do you base your claims. Will you vote for Trump who has stated how much more he will give himself and his wealthy buddies? Wow. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
4
No. He only hides his tax returns
3
Please stop whining. The United States has exactly the government it deserves. This article fails to mention that the vast majority of Americans identify with people like Dan Kloiber, not with families struggling to get by. Even in a newspaper with a reasonably well-educated readership like the NYT, read the angry rebuttals to any article about economic justice, labor unions or minimum wage legislation and you'll see what I'm talking about. Most Americans are so brainwashed by the corporate media that they'll happily work for low wages and deny their own children health care and a decent education rather than cause a moment's distress to a greedy billionaire.
78
Agreed.
7
You nailed it. Stupidity does have its consequences like getting poorer while the rich get richer at the expense of the getting poorer group.
4
Even more egregious is the role some of the mentioned states played in changing the way America uses money. Those states are havens for big banks that changed from carrying savings and paying customers respectable interest to gaining new powers to raise interest rates on credit cards to what was once usury rates by law.
Those states changed America from a nation of savers to a nation in debt from excess spending with credit.
I'm old enough to know the banks once paid me interest on my savings. Now I pay them interest on credit. America lost vast amounts of wealth.
Those states changed America from a nation of savers to a nation in debt from excess spending with credit.
I'm old enough to know the banks once paid me interest on my savings. Now I pay them interest on credit. America lost vast amounts of wealth.
106
It is sad that about half of credit card users pay interest on carried debt, but nobody is forcing them to spend beyond their means. To blame the banks for this is disingenuous.
It's become obvious in this generation that incorporation law needs to happen at the federal level, not the state level, so that corporations can't hide or transfer assets overseas. It's now also become apparent that trusts and other matters that affect vast resources and rights of citizens in many states must also happen at the federal level. Those who advocate for states' rights and small government are intevitably motivated by illegitimate forms of self-interest and the ruin of their political vehicle, the GOP, may now allow social democracy to clean up the hoarding of public resources in the hands of the 1%...
23
The shear gall to even present this piece makes me sick. And, I mean totally nauseated. What have we become, a reality show gone wild.
19
"a reality show gone wild"?
That certainly would explain at least one candidate in our up-coming presidential election.
...Andrew
That certainly would explain at least one candidate in our up-coming presidential election.
...Andrew
4
Richard, it seems to further the trend the NYT has been on for several years. Which perhaps only mirrors the trend that the American public (even the vaunted NYT readers) has also followed.
You shear sheep, not gall. The sheer ignorance that's out there is galling.
4
To start, Congress should amend the Internal Revenue Code to require that entities seeking to be treated as trusts meet minimal requirements for transparency, limited life (must meet the Rule Against Perpetuities), etc. If not, they should be deemed associations taxable as C corporations.
21
It's okay to squirrel away money in order to avoid paying taxes on interest, large inheritances, etc., while the rest of us pay full taxes on what we make? This sounds like states competing to deprive other states of money they can use to improve the quality of their citizens lives. Like the Republican chant of death taxes, most people don't make enough to qualify for this level of treatment and it should not be given to those that do, period. If ordinary Americans are supposed to be the backbone of this country why aren't we on the receiving end of a few breaks? Why do we pay in full while someone like Mitt Romney pays less? Why do they get the loopholes and we get the holes?
I don't mind paying taxes because those taxes do fund the government. However, I mind subsidizing those who don't need any sort of subsidy when I'm unemployed, or I'm salaried. I mind being told that that rich corporation or person deserves a break while my friends and neighbors are paying their own way. I mind when I see families struggling to pay for medical care while the Wal-mart heirs underpay their workers and force them into using public monies to live.
How much money does one family need to have a really good life? And isn't it spoiling children to give them money that their parents earned that they are not entitled to because they didn't work for it? If welfare is bad for the poor isn't it equally bad for the rich?
I don't mind paying taxes because those taxes do fund the government. However, I mind subsidizing those who don't need any sort of subsidy when I'm unemployed, or I'm salaried. I mind being told that that rich corporation or person deserves a break while my friends and neighbors are paying their own way. I mind when I see families struggling to pay for medical care while the Wal-mart heirs underpay their workers and force them into using public monies to live.
How much money does one family need to have a really good life? And isn't it spoiling children to give them money that their parents earned that they are not entitled to because they didn't work for it? If welfare is bad for the poor isn't it equally bad for the rich?
154
EXACTLY. Romney, Bush, Trump...all of them inherited Daddy's money and Daddy's connections. None of them is self-made, although that's the fantasy they love to portray.
42
"I don't mind paying taxes because those taxes do fund the government. "
Amazingly this country had no income tax until 1913. Our government survived on the customs duties and whiskey tax mandated by our constitution.
But forces were at work to expand that government. A government big enough to field a permanent army to engage in wars that didn't concern us, interfere in the politics and affairs of other countries, and to replace the whiskey tax so they could push Prohibition down our throats. One that collects too much in taxes so it can bludgeon us into submission because our states have been left poor and need subsidies to comply with Federal mandates.
Our founders did everything possible to spare us from this type of government but we allowed foreign philosophies to pervert that prevention.
Too bad. It used to be a great place to live.
Amazingly this country had no income tax until 1913. Our government survived on the customs duties and whiskey tax mandated by our constitution.
But forces were at work to expand that government. A government big enough to field a permanent army to engage in wars that didn't concern us, interfere in the politics and affairs of other countries, and to replace the whiskey tax so they could push Prohibition down our throats. One that collects too much in taxes so it can bludgeon us into submission because our states have been left poor and need subsidies to comply with Federal mandates.
Our founders did everything possible to spare us from this type of government but we allowed foreign philosophies to pervert that prevention.
Too bad. It used to be a great place to live.
1
There was an income tax during the Civil War: https://www.loc.gov/rr/business/hottopic/irs_history.html
Here's some of the relevant piece: During the Civil War Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861 which included a tax on personal incomes to help pay war expenses. The tax was repealed ten years later. However, in 1894 Congress enacted a flat rate Federal income tax, which was ruled unconstitutional the following year by the U.S. Supreme Court because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state.
Here's some of the relevant piece: During the Civil War Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861 which included a tax on personal incomes to help pay war expenses. The tax was repealed ten years later. However, in 1894 Congress enacted a flat rate Federal income tax, which was ruled unconstitutional the following year by the U.S. Supreme Court because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state.
1
Where is Lenin when you really need him?
35
Tanned, rested and ready in a glass box in his mausoleum in Moscow's Red Square. Bring him on! He sure nailed it for the USSR.
1
SIMPLE: jail them all, NOW! They can't hide their ill gotten gains forever. Lawyers included as well as the CEOs, corporations, republican'ts, lobbyists, governors, etc. What are we waiting for?! Tax evasion, collusion, etc. See The Panama Papers. Theodore Roosevelt is rolling around in his grave as he and FDR dealt with this around one hundred years ago. More government not less, more regulations not fewer.
Tax the rich, tax all CEOs and board members, tax all corporations, tax all Republican'ts and their ilk and those are vote for and assist them out of existence! No tax evasion or inversions, either. Common sense.
Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and the corporations and their ilk so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
Tax the rich, tax all CEOs and board members, tax all corporations, tax all Republican'ts and their ilk and those are vote for and assist them out of existence! No tax evasion or inversions, either. Common sense.
Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and the corporations and their ilk so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
14
Hey, what ever happened to those Panama Papers?
Did they roll 'em up and smoke 'em?
Did they roll 'em up and smoke 'em?
33
Eventually the chickens will come home to roost .
3
to all those people criticizing this article, what would they do if they had 100 million? it would be financial malfeasance not to construct a trust for your children, grandchildren, foundations, etc.
5
Plenty of rational billionaires, like Warren Buffet, have no intention of passing on the bulk of their riches to their descendants. They rightfully recognize that it was theirs to enjoy during their lifetime, but upon their passing, it goes back into the public, whence it came.
16
The same vile "you might be a millionaire someday" argument the rich always use on the poor to get them to vote against their own interests so the rich can keep ripping them off. Like the average person even has a conception of what 100 million U.S., much less a million, much less for most people in this dishonest country 100, oo0. A reckoning is coming for these greedy, rapacious bloodsuckers and it will NOT be pretty.
17
If I had that much money and I had children or grandchildren I'd still make them work. They can start at the bottom and work their way up. They can learn what it feels like to have limited funds and make a choice between a pair of expensive sneakers, a good book, an outing, or saving. And I'd set up a fund to help poor families and their children. And then I'd leave my children enough money to be comfortable but the bulk of it would go back to the government and a foundation. That way I'd be acknowledging what America had done for me by giving back when I no longer need it.
19
A quick search of what caused the French Revolution.
"Rising social and economic inequality, new political ideas emerging from the Enlightenment, economic mismanagement, environmental factors leading to agricultural failure, unmanageable national debt, and political mismanagement on the part of THE kING have all been cited as laying the groundwork for the Revolution"
"Rising social and economic inequality, new political ideas emerging from the Enlightenment, economic mismanagement, environmental factors leading to agricultural failure, unmanageable national debt, and political mismanagement on the part of THE kING have all been cited as laying the groundwork for the Revolution"
74
But this is America. It couldn't possibly happen here! We're all rugged individuals who love to pull ourselves up by our ever skimpier boot straps. Besides, the 1%, which may or may not include the Donald, will drop us enough crumbs to keep us content in our hovels with our poor health, and substandard educations won't they? We should be proud to subsidize the richest people on earth and demand nothing in return but the chance to serve them all our days.
10
The "one percenters" will provide just enough crumbs for the rest of the "peasants" so they will earn just enough to pay the taxes to cover the cost of roads, police and fire depts., armed forces, social security and medicare. I believe it is referred to as "indentured servitude".
4
It is very easy to find who the 1% are, where they work, and where they live.
1
This article reminds me of why it is so very important to end the ability of the very wealthy to shelter nay hide their money from the estate tax, creditors or spouses.
When America taxed the wealthy at 80 and 90 percent and basically made trust fund babies get jobs... that is when America was great since it rested upon the notion of egalitarianism.
Instead we have a broken system under which the fatuous few that are born with silver spoons go on an on about tax evasion, moving their tie manufacturing overseas, and evade serving in the military or some form of public service.
Reinstitute the draft, serious taxes on the wealthy and end the privileged few who only inherited money and never worked to create anything except misery for those of us that work for a living.
When America taxed the wealthy at 80 and 90 percent and basically made trust fund babies get jobs... that is when America was great since it rested upon the notion of egalitarianism.
Instead we have a broken system under which the fatuous few that are born with silver spoons go on an on about tax evasion, moving their tie manufacturing overseas, and evade serving in the military or some form of public service.
Reinstitute the draft, serious taxes on the wealthy and end the privileged few who only inherited money and never worked to create anything except misery for those of us that work for a living.
67
When tax rates were that high, so were deductions. Nobody ever paid 90%. The marginal rate was that high, but it was mostly for show. Very few earned enough to qualify and those who did, used the legal deductions available to pay a much lower rate.
But the crux of your argument makes no sense. We tax income in this country, not wealth. So even if you had a $100 million trust fund and didn't withdraw anything, even at a 90% tax rate, you would owe $0 in taxes.
But the crux of your argument makes no sense. We tax income in this country, not wealth. So even if you had a $100 million trust fund and didn't withdraw anything, even at a 90% tax rate, you would owe $0 in taxes.
11
@CNYorker,
You must identified yourself as another person who was suckered into believing that many people actually paid the 90% tax rates. I believe that in one year there were less than a dozen.
You must identified yourself as another person who was suckered into believing that many people actually paid the 90% tax rates. I believe that in one year there were less than a dozen.
6
How about Capital gains? Is that not income?
1
Trouble is coming to the 1%. Occupy was the left's reaction and Trump is the right's. Both were ill conceived and, I predict, both will come to naught. However, the motivation for discontent is simmering anger that will ultimately focus on the 1%. History backs it up - revolutions throughout history can be pinned to the rise of a thin ruling class, and in America, money rules. The 1% manipulate society, society is not liking it and will rebel. When Occupy and Tea Party finally join forces it will be fight or flight for the 1% and they will not win.
31
I hope you are right but the problem is that people who are not in the 1% cling to the unrealistic fantasy that they one day COULD be and therefore, always vote to protect the rich. It's ridiculous to vote against your own self-interests, but they do. They always do...
9
The 1% will hire their own private armies to protect them. They have the money to finance a complete overthrow of this governing system. They might even hire our own military to do it for them. It happens in other countries all the time. Just look south of the US border.
This is absolutely disgraceful. America is doomed to repeat the history of the Roman Empire and French Monarchy. This election will not change one single thing. All the non-1% want is a CHANCE.
We need to ask the French to borrow their guillotine.
We need to ask the French to borrow their guillotine.
18
Buy in now, tumbrels.
4
Actually, history has shown that all previous empires eventually collapsed by fighting perpetual wars ultimately bankrupting themselves. Sound familiar?
With their tax evading schemes, the one-percenters are just speeding up the process.
With their tax evading schemes, the one-percenters are just speeding up the process.
3
I've news for you. We're already in the state that signaled the end of the Roman Empire.
High taxes.
Extreme income inequality
Politicians owned by the wealthy
Politicians interested only in maintaining their positions of power
High tolerance for sexual immorality
Destruction of the nuclear family
Alcohol/Drug addictions
Continuous war standing
Barbarians at the borders and looting the nation's wealth
It's only a matter of time now. Watch for the bread and circuses.
High taxes.
Extreme income inequality
Politicians owned by the wealthy
Politicians interested only in maintaining their positions of power
High tolerance for sexual immorality
Destruction of the nuclear family
Alcohol/Drug addictions
Continuous war standing
Barbarians at the borders and looting the nation's wealth
It's only a matter of time now. Watch for the bread and circuses.
“New Hampshire is a little bit of a wannabe,” he said dismissively. “They’re a second-tier state.”
Wow, putting aside the blatant and unwarranted insult Mr. Oshins leveled at New Hampshire (for the moment), I think one relevant question is: what does he mean by "wannabe"? Just what kind of business is being courted in Nevada and should any state really want to emulate it?
Secondly, returning to the whole insult thing, Mr. Oshins may want to avoid getting into a ranking contest. "2nd Tier" is ridiculous on its face without some kind of context. But if we're speaking strictly economically, a quick search of the size of the economies of each state by GDP reveals Nevada occupying the 33rd spot just six places ahead of New Hampshire. If New Hampshire is "2nd Tier" (it's not, there's no such thing after all), then by any definition, Nevada is right there with them. Indeed, Mr. Oshins' Nevada is much closer in economic size to NH than the larger economic states. I mean, CA is sitting right next door with about 17 times the economic size. I wonder how Mr. Oshins feels having sacrificed so much of his own dignity groveling at the feet of scoundrels for so little in return. He should compare notes with Chris Christie if they ever cross paths.
Wow, putting aside the blatant and unwarranted insult Mr. Oshins leveled at New Hampshire (for the moment), I think one relevant question is: what does he mean by "wannabe"? Just what kind of business is being courted in Nevada and should any state really want to emulate it?
Secondly, returning to the whole insult thing, Mr. Oshins may want to avoid getting into a ranking contest. "2nd Tier" is ridiculous on its face without some kind of context. But if we're speaking strictly economically, a quick search of the size of the economies of each state by GDP reveals Nevada occupying the 33rd spot just six places ahead of New Hampshire. If New Hampshire is "2nd Tier" (it's not, there's no such thing after all), then by any definition, Nevada is right there with them. Indeed, Mr. Oshins' Nevada is much closer in economic size to NH than the larger economic states. I mean, CA is sitting right next door with about 17 times the economic size. I wonder how Mr. Oshins feels having sacrificed so much of his own dignity groveling at the feet of scoundrels for so little in return. He should compare notes with Chris Christie if they ever cross paths.
16
Actually there are a number of California executives moving in to Nevada. State income tax rate is zero compared to California's rate of 13%. The retirement communities in Sun City has plenty of New Jersey natives escaping the high inheritance taxes of NJ. Nevada has no estate or inheritance tax.
6
@NVFisherman, in case there's any confusion I'm not bad-mouthing Nevada, I'm bad-mouthing Mr. Oshins' ridiculous comment about "tiers" as well as his generally cynical attitude. He's the kind of "Breaking Bad", "Better Call Saul" attorney that leads a lot of people to resent the legal profession.
3
And they have lots of houses in foreclosure, so those fleeing millionaires can get bargain housing. They could even buy two or three or four or....
1
If a spouse of a married couple dies there is no federal estate taxes at all, zero, when the remaining spouse dies the federal estate tax kicks in based on whatever exclusion amount is in force at the time of the second spouses death
6
Rome is burning. The corruption and greed that is rampant in America WILL bring us down. It brought down the mighty Roman Empire and history is repeating itself. I am ashamed at what America has become.
129
Agreed. America is falling apart. This is absolutely disgraceful.
27
I for one welcome the revolution.
4
What an uplifting way to spend your career, your life - helping a few loathsome billionaires skirt their legal and moral financial obligations. This is the definition of a sociopath.
I need a shower right now.
I need a shower right now.
213
Why? Are you one of them?
1
Seems like you don't recognize sarcasm when you see one. Read closely.
4
My sarcasm evidently fell flat...Will said he needed a shower, as if he was one of the billionaires. I was joking myself. Read closely.
Is the word “passel” appropriate in this article? Its informal register doesn’t accord with the rest of the piece. Subeditors, where are you?
2
"honest, ethical taxpaying people around the world who simply want privacy"
"allow the wealthy to pass their fortunes from generation to generation for hundreds of years without paying estate taxes."
"Even as Nevada and Delaware blocked ex-spouses with claims for child support"
It's hard to read this stuff without feeling sick to my stomach.
"allow the wealthy to pass their fortunes from generation to generation for hundreds of years without paying estate taxes."
"Even as Nevada and Delaware blocked ex-spouses with claims for child support"
It's hard to read this stuff without feeling sick to my stomach.
319
Delaware has been doing this for nearly 100 years ... thanks to the Duponts, once justly known the merchants of death. The Dupont tribe suffered not a whit, and the parasitical heirs thrive to this day.
23
Just like the Hiltons, the Waltons, the Romneys, the Bushes, the Trumps...
9
Are African despots, oil sheikhs from the Middle East, Russian oligarchs, drug lords from Latin America, unscrupulous owners of death trap factories in Asia (not to mention convicted American con artists) now considered "honest, ethical taxpaying people"?
4
One word: despicable.
198
this is what happens when you let th rich write th laws
did you think lobbyists, pacs and c/u would lead to anything other than this
when th 20 richest persons, not corporations, own more wealth than th poorest 150, 000, 000, you have a problem
180
This article made me sick. Greedy billionaires trying to stiff their wives and children have a special place in hell. We can try to claw back the hidden funds from the Caymans and other tax shelters, but when our own states are legislating ways to hide assets and not pay taxes to boot, why are we bothering?
264
Perhaps this is too hard for you to understand, but if the money was put in a trust, it was never the wife's money to begin with.
2
CR, are you serious?
4
Completely serious. Money put into an irrevocable trust no longer belongs to the person who put the money into it. Why should the wife get access to it?
First hand experience. When my sister passed away, 16 years ago, she owed back taxes to the State of Colorado. My sister was destitute, or there about, when she die. The bank took whatever she had in savings, not much,m to pay off her credit cards. Her landlord kept her security deposit.
So, I filed her final income taxes. There was a bout a $2100 refund due. What i did not know, she had an outstanding student loan and the state seized the $2100. Then the state sent me a letter stating she still owed another $600 or so in back taxes. She did not file tax returns fro something like 7 years or so.
I told the state, in a letter, she was dead. There was no estate. There was nothing. The state relented on the $600.
I bet if my sister died with millions in assets, I would have never heard from the IRS or the Colorado Department of Revenue.
Helmley was right, "only little people pay taxes".
And, nothing will change if Clinton or Trump get elected. If anything government will cuts so called "entitlements", and lower taxes. And continue the elimination of the middle class.
If Clinton wants some trust, she should release, in their entirety, her income from speeches, their content, who they were given to. Also, all aspects of income sources for the Clinton Foundations. And, for equal time, Trump needs to release all of his tax returns fro the past seven years.
Only then can the people judge what their true intentions are and what they plan to do as president.
So, I filed her final income taxes. There was a bout a $2100 refund due. What i did not know, she had an outstanding student loan and the state seized the $2100. Then the state sent me a letter stating she still owed another $600 or so in back taxes. She did not file tax returns fro something like 7 years or so.
I told the state, in a letter, she was dead. There was no estate. There was nothing. The state relented on the $600.
I bet if my sister died with millions in assets, I would have never heard from the IRS or the Colorado Department of Revenue.
Helmley was right, "only little people pay taxes".
And, nothing will change if Clinton or Trump get elected. If anything government will cuts so called "entitlements", and lower taxes. And continue the elimination of the middle class.
If Clinton wants some trust, she should release, in their entirety, her income from speeches, their content, who they were given to. Also, all aspects of income sources for the Clinton Foundations. And, for equal time, Trump needs to release all of his tax returns fro the past seven years.
Only then can the people judge what their true intentions are and what they plan to do as president.
94
Leona Helmsley: "Only the little people pay taxes." (That's us.)
12
Today's Times outlines a sudden chilling of the GOP-Donnie love affair, with a robust Dump Trump movement having emerged literally overnight.
The most persuasive explanation that occurs to me is that releasing Trump's taxes would take them all down.
The most persuasive explanation that occurs to me is that releasing Trump's taxes would take them all down.
8
Nick, You should be aware that the Clinton's have released, in their entirety, their tax returns for the last eight years (through 2014). Because of Bill's political career, most of their returns going back to 1977 are publicly available. If you want to know how much they made or how much tax they paid or how much they gave to charitable giving, have at it. And perhaps do so before you write your next letter to the Editor. A summary based on the actual returns is given here (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/page/tax-returns/). In short, she made a lot of money ($10.4 million in speaker fees in 2014), gave away a lot ($3 million or 11%) to charity, and has been totally financially transparent. You are free to be jealous, free to be critical that she made a lot of money, or even free to criticize how she made her money. But you cannot criticize her for not being financially transparent. Can you now judge her intentions as President? Do you now trust her?
16
Steve can do all the posing for your photographer that he wants. He's still got Quaker State Motor Oil dripping off him.
Oh, I know, if it wasn't him, it would be someone else.
Well, I went to Yale, not a third rate law school. And I wouldn't be in the same room with this "lawyer."
Oh, I know, if it wasn't him, it would be someone else.
Well, I went to Yale, not a third rate law school. And I wouldn't be in the same room with this "lawyer."
154
Thanks for writing an article about Trusts that actually does almost nothing in describing the various trust structures and what purposes they achieve. Great writing - said sarcastically.
18
It's the New York Times. The objective is not to educate, it's to appeal to baser emotions of the readers, and to whip up the anti-rich sentiment of the masses. On the other hand, maybe the author didn't think the Times' readership could handle the details.
7
@nyalman1: In principle I agree, but maybe limited space was a limitation.
1
I'm disgusted...Bernie come baaack....
41
Bernie wasn't in state government.
E'hem, I'm pretty sure Bernie was and still is a Senator from the State of Vermont...
2
The lawyers who use irrevocable trusts to defraud medicare for expensive elderly medical bills are much worse than this lot. Medicare can't reach back to grab the money stuffed away in an irrevocable trust, Medicare has to pay the bill, Medicare spending goes up, all of our taxes go up.
34
Got news: "irrevocable trusts" are not irrevocable if all the beneficiaries agree to changes in the will. Maintain the estate tax throughout the country, and tax estates worth more than 10 million. Let's have the rich pay their fair share of taxes for a really big change of pace. We shouldn't even think of taxing those who make less than $50,000.
79
Are you confusing Medicare with Medicaid?
Medicare Part A (hospitalization) is available free to most people who have paid FICA taxes while working. Medicare Part B (doctors) is funded through patient premiums plus general revenues, so there is no need to reach back into a person’s trust to pay any bills.
Medicaid, on the other hand, is for the poor, including anyone who has below a certain level of assets. It is funded entirely by general revenues with no premiums. Before covering nursing home bills, Medicaid can claw back gifts made within the last five years.
Medicare Part A (hospitalization) is available free to most people who have paid FICA taxes while working. Medicare Part B (doctors) is funded through patient premiums plus general revenues, so there is no need to reach back into a person’s trust to pay any bills.
Medicaid, on the other hand, is for the poor, including anyone who has below a certain level of assets. It is funded entirely by general revenues with no premiums. Before covering nursing home bills, Medicaid can claw back gifts made within the last five years.
8
Funny how the 1% tail wags the 300 million other Americans, if you're into dark humor. I was remarking the same to my wife today after watching DJT rework trickle down economics. The political class, and the lawyers, accountants and other consultants who serve the ultra rich clientele, live off of the drippings, and never ever feel like the dogs.
108
Henry VI: First we'll kill all the lawyers." I've always loved that play.
17
Shakespeare did not intend it as a prescription.
As the NYT knows:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/17/nyregion/l-kill-the-lawyers-a-line-mis...
As the NYT knows:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/17/nyregion/l-kill-the-lawyers-a-line-mis...
4
They tried to kill all the lawyers -- today in Pakistan. With all that is wrong, try a little gratitude, even for lawyers, bankers, insurance people and countless others whose work only comes to your attention when there is scandal, or when they help you.
5
The former senator from NY, Hillary Clinton, having firsthand knowledge, can enlighten readers on the benefits of establishing a trust in Delaware.
38
Oh, brother. For some, EVERYTHING is about Hillary hatred. Putting aside the very legitimate and non-tax dodging reasons for establishing a trust in Delaware, we can at least say we are well informed about the Clinton household finances. The Republican candidate refuses to abide by long-standing tradition and keeps his tax returns secret.
We can only wonder why.
We can only wonder why.
27
99.8% of estates owe no estate tax at all, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Only the estates of the wealthiest 0.2% of Americans — roughly 2 out of every 1,000 people who die — owe any estate tax.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal...
But remember, "it's never enough" for the tax-dodging 0.2%.
Affluenza, the ultimate psychopathy of deeply disturbed, 'poor' millionaires and billionaires.
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes" - Leona Helmsley (and many of her billionaire friends).
Nice people.
Only the estates of the wealthiest 0.2% of Americans — roughly 2 out of every 1,000 people who die — owe any estate tax.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal...
But remember, "it's never enough" for the tax-dodging 0.2%.
Affluenza, the ultimate psychopathy of deeply disturbed, 'poor' millionaires and billionaires.
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes" - Leona Helmsley (and many of her billionaire friends).
Nice people.
302
This goes beyond the estate tax. A trust is established during a person's life time. The person establishing the trust (the settlor) transfers his or her wealth to a trustee, who then manages the trust for the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries (often family members who have yet to be born) then take their future income from the trust. When the settlor dies, there is no estate tax to pay because the trust (a legal entity) survives. This is how the rich preserve their wealth for generation upon generation and control the wealth of the nation from their graves.
18
Liberty and justice for all. Right.
85
Ironic - combined with an article on the front page about the staggering decline of jury trials - also on the front page of the NYTimes today. "Equal justice for all", carved on the Supreme Court building, no longer exists - economically or legally - in the United States.
Time to vote Green.
Time to vote Green.
10
Sure, the Green Party has done so much for this country to lead us down the road of equality. NOT!
5
As the article states, there is no money for the State, only the already rich lawyers doing the deal. Will someone issue the Nevada Papers, please?
58
Wow, Trumps economic plan is to get rid of the estate tax, which only affects the top 10 percent of american taxpayers. Boo hoo, what would that mean for all the lawyers who establish complex trusts so that the children of the 1 percent super rich can avoid paying estate tax. Would the economy tank?
15
not even the top 10% - if you are single, your estate has to exceed $5,450,000 before you pay estate tax. Double that number if you're married.
Personally, seeing how many 'trust fund babies', such as Mr. Drumpf, turn out, I would like to make the estate tax higher so they aren't quite so 'entitled'.
Personally, seeing how many 'trust fund babies', such as Mr. Drumpf, turn out, I would like to make the estate tax higher so they aren't quite so 'entitled'.
166
"the estate tax, which only affects the top 10 percent of american taxpayers"
Sorry if this sounds mean, but you really need to educate yourself: you're off by a factor of 50: roughly 0.2% of estates are taxed at all. The ultra-rich are sustained by popular underestimation of their wealth and especially of their separation from the rest of us. We need to get the truth out there and correct the fog of misinformation.
Sorry if this sounds mean, but you really need to educate yourself: you're off by a factor of 50: roughly 0.2% of estates are taxed at all. The ultra-rich are sustained by popular underestimation of their wealth and especially of their separation from the rest of us. We need to get the truth out there and correct the fog of misinformation.
24
Trillions of dollars are being hidden in "offshore accounts" far away places like Delaware. This is money that could be driving the economy, but the holders of all of this cash are waiting for the economy to come back before they invest.
Money laundering is a protected crime, because influential campaign donors, arms smugglers, and intelligence services all use it.