| RavenBlog |
|
| Comments on Monday 18 October 2004: |
| Allegedly, 1,049 federal rights depend on marital status in America (where 'federal rights' is extremely loosely defined to include 'entirely non-federal non-right things that are benefits available to married couples'). Which is of interest because these are benefits that are not available to couples who can't marry, such as homosexual couples, showing just how discriminatory it is to refuse homosexual marriages or civil unions. It's not just the lack of recognition, it's a whole pile of other things. But that's not really why I'm posting it. My reason for finding it interesting is more amusement - that my game-theorising brain sees this: "A spouse who dies may leave an unlimited amount of property to the surviving spouse without paying any state or federal estate taxes. Without the benefit of marriage, any amount of property over the federal or state exclusion amounts is taxed."And it wants to see the loophole exploited. Partly because loopholes being exploited is fun, and partly because the mechanism by which this loophole would be exploited is amusingly insane. Here's how it works: to pass on an inheritance to your children tax-free, the parent who outlives the other parent (or who is already divorced) remarries a trustworthy friend of comparable age when their (the parent's) death seems imminent. When the parent dies their trustworthy friend (and now spouse) inherits the estate tax-free. The friend, then, being not blood-related to the child, marries the child, thus allowing the inheritance to be passed on again without tax when the friend dies. Best loophole ever. Any loophole which requires at least two deaths in the exploiting is worth at least 50 points. [02:37] |
| Anet |
| Only in some states... Several do not allow step-parents to marry their step-children. I thought you were in Australia? You seem to be a bit... um... interested in American law. |
| RavenBlack |
| The loophole could still be exploited by adding another person, unless a step-parent remarrying also makes the new partner a step-parent. Or you could just go to a state that allows it, of course. I'm not interested in American law - I'm interested in *stupid* law. Australia doesn't have much to be amused by in that respect. |
| Anet |
| Yes, it does... and the property would still be subject to the previous state's rules... I see. Well, as far as the states go then you have a veritable mining (or mine field) operation. |
| Chris Chambers |
| The actual trick for these laws is that Parent A dies, and leaves the maximum amount to the children, passing on everything else to Parent B, in the form of a Trust executed by Parent B, which is passed to the children in the event of Parent B's death. Upon Parent B's death, the trust vests in the Children, but is only taxable on the value beyond Parent B's inheritance allowance at the time of Trust formation. That'll slide... currently, 10 million through tax free. And it's specifically allowed in estate tax law. |
| RavenBlack |
| 10 million would be a pretty poor deal if you're Bill Gates rich though. |
| Sadie |
| Hey Austraila is boring..... Where are you from there? I was born in Melbourne I just moved to America like 2 years ago! I live in Oklahoma now...dont ask..and we are allowed to mary step children and step parents and pretty much anybody we want..even though that stupid gay law.. i think they should be free to do what ever they want! |
| RavenBlack |
| I'm in Adelaide. I don't find Australia any more boring than America or Britain, and it's a lot more pleasant than America. |
| Sadie |
| I agree. I don't believe i have ever been to Adelaide. I would move back to Melbourne but...i have problems there so i moved here to start my career in music. |
| Kilikina |
| What about a trust fund. The taxing issue that you're reffering to is from the married couple's will. Are you sure that a trust fund has taxes, after all, the states make trust funds harder to accomplish because they don't like them. Well, if they werem't reciving taxes from a trust fund, that would make them disslike it. |
| Kilikina |
| Oh yes, and also about the actual homosexual marrige issue; although I agree with your opioin that it's a stupid law, it is still an *opinion* , yet you speak of it as if it's a fact. You see there reason for making that law is primitive and self-centered. The polititions(if the word politics is broken down by the way, I find that, polyis Latin for "many" and tics are "blood sucking creatures" hmm, sound familiar) have people who pay them off and those old-fasioned pupet masters feel uncomfortable by such marriges; it breaks the conformity they are trying to secertly build. It is easier to become rich from people if they are all the same. So they give the polititions money, they go home happy, and there you have all you idiotic laws. So to them, it's actualy a good deal: sacrifice the feelings of many, so they, the few, can be rich. |