Subj : Re: Um...no comment?
To   : richardw
From : Finnigann
Date : Wed Sep 14 2005 06:45 pm

-=> richardw wrote to Finnigann <=-

 ri>   Re: Re: Um...no comment?
 ri>   By: Finnigann to richardw on Tue Sep 13 2005 06:53 pm

 >  >  >  > Any particular reason the assets couldn't have been jointly held be
 >  >  >  > and his wife?
 >  >  >
 >  >  > Any particular reason why they should have?
 >  >
 >  >  De> Because, in this hypothetical world, if they didn't share control of
 >  >  De> the assets, they would effectively all be confiscated by the governm
 >  >  De> on his death.  Sounds like a good reason to have a wife you trust an
 >  >  De> children you get along with.
 >  >
 >  > Hopefully raising such a family AND making the million plus to be of inte
 >  > to the IRS is possilbe.
 >
 >  ri> The PRIMARY reason I don't like "Death" taxes... I don't like the idea
 >  ri> of the government reaping the rewards of it's own citizen's deaths.
 >
 >
 > Why do you specify DEATH taxes? You don't like to pay for anything.

 ri> You're just ignorant.

Right, I AM ignorant, just not as ignorant as you are...
And you're parsimonious.

.... The BUCK stops here! So, now let's move over there. 'w'
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.46
 þ Synchronet þ Bits-N-Bytes BBS    Onehellofa BBS     bnb.dtdns.net

.