Ken Lay found Dead

[jessexy]

yeah if he had been convicted on 11 charges or whatever why the hell was he vacationing in CO and not in prison?

i cant wait until the next drug dealer is found on vacation after being convicted of dealing drugs and murder. Nino Brown lives on!!!!!

or maybe we can say that all the Mexican immigrants living in America were just "on vacation."

what a crock.

[SLUDoubleDeuce]

That sound you hear is the black helicopters firing up.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/07/news/newsmakers/enron_lay.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

[StrykerFSU]

An interesting subplot to this story is that Lay's name will probably be removed from the record. Legal scholars correct me if I'm wording this wrong but I believe since he was awaiting sentencing at the time of his death his lawyers may now move to have the conviction removed from his record, or something to that effect.

[sohotrightnow]

I didn't know he had a heart. Yeah, I went there girlfriend.

[Hackalicious]

Now the government can take half of the stuff they didn't get through fines. Love that income redistribution, I mean estate tax.

Less than 0.5% of people who actually end up paying an average 20% estate tax, only on more than $2 million of inherited money.

Most of the people who actually stand to inherit more than the $2 million ($4 million for couples) minimum end up sheltering it anyway.

So, yeah. Poor Paris Hilton has to actually pay a fraction of her unearned forture to pay for a system that largely exists to protect her wealth.

Boo f'ing hoo.

I wish people would follow in the footsteps of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and realize that bestowing a massive unearned fortune on your kids is not a good thing for them. But hey, if that's your thing, there are plenty of places in the world controlled by family aristocracies.

Roughly 99 percent of estates pay no estate tax at all. Among the few estates that do owe taxes, the "effective" tax rate — that is, the percentage of the estate that is paid in taxes — averaged about 20 percent in 2004, according to the IRS, far below the top estate tax rate of 49 percent that these estates faced (http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax.htm).

Today, the estates of only 1 out of every 200 people who die owe any estate tax whatsoever, because the first $2.0 million of the value of any estate ($4.0 million for a couple) is totally exempt from the tax. (http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm)

[KnoxVegas]

Slate.com has a good article detailing why the government will not pursue Lay's money:
Can't the Feds Get Lay's Money?
How a heart attack saved Enron's founder $43.5 million.

"...Things wouldn't have been any different even if he had gotten the judgment of conviction. The principle of "abatement" lets a defendant off the hook for a conviction if he happens to die before getting through at least one round of appeals. If he doesn't get a chance to file an appeal, he's missed out on an integral part of the legal process, so he gets the benefit of the doubt. In other words, he's innocent until proven guilty, and then proven guilty again. Since Ken Lay died before he could appeal, the courts will abate his conviction and all the punishments he would have received"

http://www.slate.com/id/2145158/

[StrykerFSU]

There are two main problems with the estate tax as I see it. First, why is the government more entitled to the wealth of a person after their death than their own family? Second, all of that wealth was at one time income and was taxed as such. Taxing that wealth a second time after a person's death is wrong.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have donated billions of dollars and that is commendable but what did some in the media say? "How did they get so rich?" "Why do CEOs make so much more than workers?" It is not the government's role in capitalistic society to make sure there is even income distribution. Some people are more successful than others, often on their own merits but sometimes not. I do not resent Paris Hilton or anyone else for the wealth they have inherited.

And let's be honest here, in this day and age $2 million is not all that much. We're not talking robber baron money here. Any successful professional has the ability to amass $2 million in a lifetime and should have the freedom to do with it as they see fit without it being taxed a second time.

[UofMLaxGoalie11]

It is not the government's role in capitalistic society to make sure there is even income distribution.

Isn't that the government's roll in communism?

[Hackalicious]

There are two main problems with the estate tax as I see it. First, why is the government more entitled to the wealth of a person after their death than their own family? Second, all of that wealth was at one time income and was taxed as such. Taxing that wealth a second time after a person's death is wrong.

A company makes money, and it gets taxed. They pay a dividend to me, and I get taxed. I buy something at the store with it, and pay sales tax. The store owner pays tax on that revenue, and on his inventory, etc., etc.

Taxes operate on a transactional basis. There is nothing more "wrong" about the estate tax than any other tax.

And what's this about "income distribution"? The fact is, estate and dividend taxes are mostly paying for the military and interest payments to Asian and Saudi banks. If you want to cut them, fine. Then you're cutting defense, or defaulting on t-bills like a third world country.

In contrast, payroll taxes fund programs like social security. I assume that is the type of "income redistribution" programs you'd prefer to give the ax. Those taxes are paid by people who work for a living, and unfortunately, are often overlooked when people talk about income taxes.

But what a brave stance you've taken defending the unearned incomes of the children of privilege. I'm sure they appreciate your efforts.

[StrykerFSU]

This analysis examines the arguments for and against the federal estate tax and concludes that the estate tax generates costs to taxpayers, the economy and the environment that far exceed any potential benefits that it might arguably produce.
This paper documents the extensive costs associated with the federal estate tax. Specifically, the report finds:

The existence of the estate tax this century has reduced the stock of capital in the economy by approximately $497 billion, or 3.2 percent.
The distortionary incentives in the estate tax result in the inefficient allocation of resources, discouraging saving and investment and lowering the after-tax return on investments.
The estate tax is extremely punitive, with marginal tax rates ranging from 37 percent to nearly 80 percent in some instances.
The estate tax is a leading cause of dissolution for thousands of family-run businesses. Estate tax planning further diverts resources available for investment and employment.
The estate tax obstructs environmental conservation. The need to pay large estate tax bills often forces families to develop environmentally sensitive land.
The estate tax violates the basic principles of a good tax system: it is complicated, unfair and inefficient.
In addition, a review of the arguments in favor of the estate tax suggests that the tax produces no benefits that would justify the large social and economic costs.
The estate tax is a "virtue tax" in the sense that it penalizes work, saving and thrift in favor of large-scale consumption.
Empirical and theoretical research indicates that the estate tax is ineffective at reducing inequality, and may actually increase inequality of consumption.
The enormous compliance costs associated with the estate tax are of the same general magnitude as the tax's revenue yield, or about $23 billion in 1998.
The deduction for charitable bequests stimulates little or no additional giving.
The estate tax raises very little, if any, net revenue for the federal government. The distortionary effects of the estate tax result in losses under the income tax that are roughly the same size as estate tax revenue.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/estattax/estattax.htm