Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login
We have been hearing a great deal about the repealing or expiring of what are known as the Bush Tax Cuts unless Congress acts, the estate tax will be back next year and no more than $1 million of a person's estate would be exempt from it. That's well below the $3.5 million exemption in place last year. And the top estate tax rate would be 55%, up from 45% in effect last year. Well here is the URL that George W Bush signed into law. Really Long Link
Let’s say that many of the tax relief efforts given in this law will expire meaning that the no new taxes on the middle class could be out the window. Meaning you need to read the law of what tax relief efforts that could go away and do not let anyone in the administration divert your attention away from that fact however, the one that is pressing is the estate tax.

As the tax is written in the law,
Year Highest Estate and
Gift Tax Rate Amount Exempt
from Estate Tax
2002 50% $1 million
2003 49% $1 million
2004 48% $1.5 million
2005 47% $1.5 million
2006 46% $2 million
2007 45% $2 million
2008 45% $2 million
2009 45% $3.5 million
2010 Top Individual Rate
(for gift tax only) Unlimited - Taxes Repealed


According to State Farm Life and Annuities web page (URL in References) it’s very important to be aware that this repeal is temporary; the entire law "sunsets" (expires) after December 31, 2010. This means that the provisions of this 2001 Tax Act will no longer be effective on January 1, 2011 and the tax structure as it existed in 2001 will take effect again (in 2011, Federal estate tax will be assessed on property in excess of $1 million with a maximum tax rate of 55%.) Remember property is not just a house or real estate. Property is anything and everything your parents owed, savings, checking, IRA’s, painting, antiques, cars, investments, and IRA’s (I am sure I am leaving something out but you get the idea the 1 million dollars adds up very quickly So after you pay to have everything transferred into your name then you have it assessed or appraised then you will be taxed. The house that you parents own they probably paid several thousand dollars for (depending on the age of your parents) so today the value is higher. Have there been changes or upgrades that make it worth more. So what is the total of the dollar value of everything your parents have and not they are not rich but after having lived through the depression and rationing they saved every nickel, penny and dime. What I am saying is that it would not take much to accumulate a million dollars in property, assets, savings and insurance.

Just reading the law one understands that there are a great deal of loophole. The vagueness of this law should get you to realize that no one is exempt and that anyone could be affected by being taxed and with the way this Congress is spending money someone’s going to have to pay for it, and that would be you and me.
Timothy Geitner stated that he felt the rich (a term not defined in dollars and cents) should have to pay the “death tax” and Congressman Crowley of Wisconsin said “CROWLEY: I could tell you, Chris, in my district, there are very few people who make more than that money (INAUDIBLE) just a gross income of $250,000 or more. And I think, to live in the greatest country, as I said before, the world has ever known, it`s a small price to pay” (Hardball July 27, 2010). This country is built on desire, will, determination and I must say we have had some of the greatest inventive minds that allowed many to become wealthy. So why can’t we keep what we earn. Many who are wealthy are very benevolent. Just look at Bill Gates, Jimmy Buffet, Gene Simmons, and Sam Walton just to name a few. This will stop if they are overly taxed (I know cause many of us have cut back our donations because of an uncertain economy) and if they put money back into their businesses to hire new people, to provide additional benefits, to provide raises or bonuses.
Also let’s think about how many programs congress has decided to levy a tax on the wealthiest people. If they keep taxing the wealthiest then they will not be wealthy for very long and then what is the government going to do? In fact Forbes Magazine in September 2009, Matthew Miller and Duncan Greenberg wrote “The Richest People in America says that “America's super rich are getting poorer. For only the fifth time since 1982, the collective net worth of The Forbes 400, our annual tally of the nation's richest people, has declined, falling $300 billion in the past 12 months from $1.57 trillion to $1.27 trillion.”
I write this because Blanche Lincoln (Democrat from Arkansas) and Jon Kyl (Republican from Arizona) are introducing the “Estate Tax Reform which is to permanently reform the federal estate tax. This proposal is modifying language of H.R. 5297. Really Long Link
Here is a summary about the proposal since I have yet to find a bill or actual text.The proposal would require the Senate Finance Committee to amend H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending bill, to permanently set the estate tax rate at 35 percent, with a $5 million exemption amount phased in over 10 years and indexed for inflation. It would also provide a “stepped up basis” for inherited assets.
“It’s time to take decisive action on the estate tax, and provide the permanent solution that Arkansas’s hardworking farmers and small businesses are desperately seeking,” said Lincoln. “Uncertainty in the estate tax law has caused incredible difficulties for these individuals, which is why I have fought for a quick resolution to the issue that is both permanent and fair. One way to improve upon an already strong legislative initiative that includes tax incentives and a number of other benefits for small businesses is to ensure that we reach a permanent solution on the estate tax to provide small business owners and famers with the certainty they need.”
“If the Small Business Lending bill is intended to help small business create jobs, wouldn’t it make sense to provide small business owners with the certainty that their tax rates aren’t going to skyrocket at the beginning of next year?” said Kyl. “In just six short months, American taxpayers will face the largest tax hike in history unless Congress acts. It is estimated that more than a half million American families will pay the estate tax over the next decade, and the lack of congressional action creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty for these families, small-business owners, and farmers. This uncertainty is one of several factors acting to prevent a strong economic recovery from taking hold.”
The Lincoln-Kyl proposal provides an election for deceased taxpayers to either retain this year’s estate tax rate, which is zero percent with “carry over basis,” or file under the provisions of the new bill.
Their proposal also instructs the Senate Finance Committee to offset the difference in revenue loss between the Obama administration’s proposed 45 percent estate tax rate with a $3.5 million exemption amount and their proposed reform.
If Congress does not act this year, the federal estate tax is scheduled to increase to 55 percent with only a $1 million exemption at the beginning of 2011.
Senators Lincoln and Kyl introduced a similar measure in April 2009 that received broad bipartisan support and was successfully added to the non-binding congressional budget resolution
References:
Really Long Link
www.statefarm.com
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
28
Vote
   


S.3628 –Disclose Act

July 26th 2010 20:18
“Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction” (Mark Twain). We have all heard that quote how about changing that to sometimes truth is comical than fiction. Why do I say that well today July 26, 2010 the senate is considering S.3628 –Disclose Act sounds harmless and the bill is sponsored by Senator Charles Schumer (D, NY)?
Title one is entitled Regulation of Certain Political Spending. That is why I said truth is more comical than fiction. Congress regulating spending is that an oxymoron or what as we watch the debt clock rising.
Now just suppose month after month, after month, after month, after month (get the picture) you spend more money than your income. You are personally running at a deficit so you borrow money or you start use your credit cards (because congress just enacted a bill that cuts down on your interest oh but not the other cost factors the credit card companies have come up with to get your money) so now you are incurring debt. On all debt there is interest that you must pay if you do not believe me look at you home settlement papers. What you brought your home complied with the interest you are paying to that 15, 20 or 30 year mortgage. Makes your house three or four times more than what your bid was for and if you do not have enough to cover all of that than you look for a home equity loan or refinancing which means you are incurring more debt. See what spending beyond your means does? When you get to just paying the interest and never paying anything on the principle then you are probably looking at bankruptcy.
It is your money being spent, always remember that. Whenever they pass a bill or a budget the government takes your money it doesn’t have any money and it is not selling a product or a service so it is YOURS or it is money that they are borrowing and YOU have to pay it back. So for them to regulate spending I believe we need to watch this bill S3628 carefully. Remember the CBO and many economists are saying that the 2008 and 2009 Stimulus or bailout bills were deficit spending. Even President Obama on C-SPAN has had to omit we are out of money. “Expect to see enormous deficits in the foreseeable future, leading to much more debt; and interest payments on that debt will become the largest item in the federal budget. On C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: "We are out of money”” (gateway Pundit, 2009)
It is hard to believe, but every year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than it has taken in. So to compensate the Treasury Department borrows money to meet Congress's appropriations. So it is funny to be that they want to regulate any spending.
From a cursory overview of the bill it appears they are going back to see how they can limit spending when running for office. This would be amazing that they wouldn’t find the loopholes in that since, “The 2008 campaign was the costliest in history, with a record-shattering $5.3 billion in spending by candidates, political parties and interest groups on the congressional and presidential races”.(Cummings, 2008)
That sum marks a 27 percent increase over the $4.2 billion spent on the 2004 campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which compiled the figures.
The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion when all candidates and related expenses are included, the center found” (Cummings, 2009). Or do you remember this bill that again you and I are paying for… The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama"(Mayorowitz, 2009).
Others over spending for campaigns are;
“Former eBay president and GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has smashed California's campaign spending record and spent seven times as much as her main rivals since January 1st.
The billionaire's campaign spent nearly $27 million in the first 11 weeks of the year, according to a disclosure statement filed Monday, the Mercury News reports.
This money, coupled with the $19 million the campaign spent last year, accounts for a total of $46 million spent by Whitman's campaign thus far. $39 million of that money, about 85 percent, came from the personal fortune she has used to finance her own campaign” (Magloff, 2010).
“Gaining momentum as the general election approaches, Senator Barbara Boxer’s reelection campaign received $2 million in contributions during the latest fundraising period.
Boxer's campaign now has $9.6 million in the bank for her 2010 congressional campaign.” (Barbara Boxer’s web page)
“Republican Rick Scott's $22.6M smashes state campaign-spending record. Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott has shattered Gov. Crist in campaign spending” (Orlando Sentinel , 2010)

So the outcome of what it is that the legislative branch of the government is trying to do will be seen but if you are like me, you cannot wait for the August recess because that will not be quiet so “TAXING”.
To read the bill and form your own opinion check out URL
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d1113628:

References:
Really Long Link
Really Long Link

Really Long Link
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d1113628:
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
26
Vote
   


I am still discussing H.R. 4213 - American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010. This bill maybe coming up for a vote soon, here is another interesting section you should understand. Again do not find this item to be either a tax or a program to create jobs so why it is in this bill I have no idea.
SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF BUILD AMERICA BONDS.
(a) In General- Subparagraph (B) of section 54AA(d)(1) is amended by striking `January 1, 2011' and inserting `January 1, 2013'.
(b) Extension of Payments to Issuers-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 6431 is amended--
(A) by striking `January 1, 2011' in subsection (a) and inserting `January 1, 2013'; and
(B) by striking `January 1, 2011' in subsection (f)(1)(B) and inserting `a particular date'.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS- Subsection (g) of section 54AA is amended--
(A) by striking `January 1, 2011' and inserting `January 1, 2013'; and
(B) by striking `Qualified Bonds Issued Before 2011' in the heading and inserting `Certain Qualified Bonds'.
(c) Reduction in Percentage of Payments to Issuers- Subsection (b) of section 6431 is amended--
(1) by striking `The Secretary' and inserting the following:
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary';
(2) by striking `35 percent' and inserting `the applicable percentage'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(2) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE- For purposes of this subsection, the term `applicable percentage' means the percentage determined in accordance with the following table:
----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- -----
`In the case of a qualified bond issued during calendar year: The applicable percentage is:
----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- -----
2009 or 2010 35 percent
2011 32 percent
2012 30 percent.'.
----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- -----
(d) Current Refundings Permitted- Subsection (g) of section 54AA is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(3) TREATMENT OF CURRENT REFUNDING BONDS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this subsection, the term `qualified bond' includes any bond (or series of bonds) issued to refund a qualified bond if--
`(i) the average maturity date of the issue of which the refunding bond is a part is not later than the average maturity date of the bonds to be refunded by such issue,
`(ii) the amount of the refunding bond does not exceed the outstanding amount of the refunded bond, and
`(iii) the refunded bond is redeemed not later than 90 days after the date of the issuance of the refunding bond.
`(B) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE- In the case of a refunding bond referred to in subparagraph (A), the applicable percentage with respect to such bond under section 6431(b) shall be the lowest percentage specified in paragraph (2) of such section.
`(C) DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE MATURITY- For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), average maturity shall be determined in accordance with section 147(b)(2)(A).'.
(e) Clarification Related to Levees and Flood Control Projects- Subparagraph (A) of section 54AA(g)(2) is amended by inserting `(including capital expenditures for levees and other flood control projects)' after `capital expenditures'.
I wasn’t sure what a build America Bond was I do know I have read about them so what are Build America Bonds and when did the public get another opportunity to purchase “Build America Bonds.” You guess it! Build America Bonds were in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed into law on February 17, 2009. “The Build America Bonds are taxable (liking them so far?) and through Federal subsidies or tax credits, are intended (okay have they planned that they will do something, have they planned for people actually wanted to purchase these bonds, or have they calculated that the American Public is clamoring to invest in its country when this administration cannot stop spending money? Just a couple of questions interjected here!
There were two types of Build America Bonds
1. Is a federal subsidy to investors that equals to 35% of interest that is payable by the issuer, so wouldn’t the issuer be the government? Wouldn’t they be paying out the 35% and whose money does the government spend? Right OURS!
2. The second bond provides a direct Federal subsidy that will be paid to state and local government that also pays out an amount equal to (what is that means)35% of interest.
The Build America Bonds must comply with all requirements applicable to the issuance of tax-exempt government bonds.
My next question is with the investment advocate that was signed into law today, are they going to advise you to purchase Build America Bonds?

References
Really Long Link
:
http://www.senate.gov/
Really Long Link

Really Long Link

37
Vote
   


H.R.4213 American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010 are on the Senate calendar today. They are going to vote on possible cloture.

What is cloture you ask well “Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.” (U.S. Senate


[ Click here to read more ]
46
Vote
   


Well it is time for the Senate to review and debate HR5297 this is the Small Business Jobs bill. With stimulus and a government agency The Small Business Administration already overseeing small business just exactly is this legislation supposed to do. Section 399L provides us with definitions of what is an “Early Stage Small Business, the Participating Investment Company and what the target industries are. So if you are planning to start your own company just because you do not like working for someone else or because in this economy and current record numbers of people unemployed can you only get assistance if you start a company in the target industries? What good does that do you if you are not educated or have expertise in one of those areas?

SEC. 399L. DEFINITIONS


[ Click here to read more ]
48
Vote
   


More on Finance Reform

July 17th 2010 19:36
The reports out today about the Financial Reform Bill are interesting to say the least. The first thing that stand out as I understand it is that the Senate and Congress is not writing the rules and regulations but 10 regulatory agencies will be going through the process of writing the new regulations. Now is that good or bad depending on how you feel your particular legislators are doing. For me I want to know how my senators voted on a bill that had no real language and if the regulations overseeing the industry are written by the industry then doesn’t that defeat the purpose of needing regulations? Also what took over 2000 pages to say? Wouldn’t the environment best be served saving the trees then cutting them down for all that paper? In an article Law Remakes U.S. Financial Landscape from the Wall Street Journal (2010) you will read “Now, the legislation hands off to 10 regulatory agencies the discretion to write hundreds of new rules governing finance. Rather than the bill itself, it will be this process—accompanied by a lobbying blitz from banks—that will determine the precise contours of this new landscape, how strict the new regulations will be and whether they succeed in their purpose. The decisions will be made by officials from new agencies, obscure agencies and, in some cases, agencies like the Federal Reserve that faced criticism in the run-up to the crisis.”


[ Click here to read more ]
35
Vote
   


I hope you all did not miss this section of the finance reform bill. This section and I have taken it right from the bill, mentions another Government Agency the Investor Advocate and with a position description. Question – how is this getting paid for? This is a good question since government spending has hit the trillion dollar mark and there are still 4 months left in the fiscal year (just a reminder we have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq). My next question is - are they looking at every ones portfolio? Are they going to tell you what stocks, bonds etc to buy?
That is way too much government for me and if they cannot take care of their own spending and investments (of course they could just print money but, oh that devalues it and makes it worthless) they why would I take the governments advice unless like Charlie Rangel and Timothy Geithner I do not have to pay taxes on what I make?

[ Click here to read more ]
28
Vote
   


Read this one folks and we may spend a couple of posting on this one you can find the bill in its entirety at Really Long Link

The first portion I am going to highlight is section 304 – yes they are talking both commercial and residential. I believe this will mean you spending more! Why? First to keep you house up to code. Also if builders need to meet these new standards how many new homes will be built (not only because of a bad economy) because of these new standards and the price to sell them and have the builder make a profit? Or they will have to cut the wages or forgo the health insurance plans in order to pay for the items needed to have building or houses are built to the new specifications. The second, if business are going to have to meet a standard then several things will happening! New businesses will not come to the United States when they can build in other countries for less and pay less in minimum wage or the cost to implement these standards will again be passed on to you


[ Click here to read more ]
53
Vote
   


With the removal of three major items from the Finance Reform Bill (previously talked about) three Republican Olympia Snow, Republican from Maine, Susan Collins Republican from Maine and Scott Brown Republican from Massachusetts changed their vote so the Finance Reform Bill has passed the Senate. With these changes I believe the bill must go back to the House (or should I say) it is supposed to go back to the House for another vote but the President is hoping to sign it this week so you have to move fast if you want your Congressman to support the bill or to vote No on finance reform. Here is the bill that I found and from skimming through it I do not see that the language has changed. That concerns me as earlier this year Representative Jim Bunning from Kentucky wanted to be assured that there was a way to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits do you remember that? They made a promise to Representative Bunning and then after he voted yes to the measure changed it after the fact. However who knows what they will do this time. The URL for the bill is Really Long Link Please at your leisure (LOL) read the 2000 plus pages.
Basically from what I am hearing and reading the Wall Street Journal, Money magazine and Reuters the following has been removed from the original bill.
Banks were restricted in the bill from investing money in Hedge Funds this has been partially taken out of the bill. The bill states that banks are only allowed to invest 3% of their capital monies in Hedge Funds. Banks are not allowed according to this bill to trade their own accounts but they can trade for clients or their investors


[ Click here to read more ]
65
Vote
   


“On June 23, 2010 we learned that U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, in New Orleans, Louisiana, has issued a preliminary injunction against the Obama administration's ban on deep water offshore drilling. President Obama had ordered a six month moratorium on drilling at depths of more than 500 feet, in response to the continuing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in response to the ruling: "The president strongly believes, as the Department of Interior and Department of Justice argued yesterday, that continuing to drill at these depths without knowing what happened does not make any sense".
While Gibbs argued that such drilling "potentially puts safety of those on the rigs, the safety of the environment and the Gulf at a danger that the president does not believe we can afford right now," Judge Feldman disagreed, saying in his ruling, "the court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings (of the government) and the immense scope of the moratorium. The plaintiffs assert that they have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of the moratorium. The court agrees


[ Click here to read more ]
57
Vote
   


More Posts
14 Posts
14 Posts
10 Posts
70 Posts dating from June 2008
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:

DL Jacquette's Blogs

50 Vote(s)
0 Comment(s)
5 Post(s)
Moderated by DL Jacquette
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]