From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2002 #453 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/joni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Friday, November 1 2002 Volume 2002 : Number 453 The Official Joni Mitchell Homepage, created by Wally Breese, can be found at http://www.jonimitchell.com. It contains the latest news, a detailed bio, Original Interviews, essays, lyrics and much much more. The JMDL website can be found at http://www.jmdl.com and contains interviews, articles, the member gallery, archives, and much more. ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Travelogue in UK [Stephen Pelton ] Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) [Steve Dulson ] Re: Travelogue in UK [=?iso-8859-1?q?Jamie=20Zubairi?= ] RE: Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) [Deb Messling ] RE: Estate tax (NJC, Long, PC) [] Re: Joni on politics...made in the USA...globalism NJC [colin ] Re: Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) [colin ] Re: Estate tax (NJC) [colin ] Re: Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) [colin ] Re: JMDL Digest V2002 #452 [Kardinel@aol.com] Re: Estate tax.... short PC (NJC) [vince ] Re: Republicans, Democrats, Estate Tax (NJC) ["kakki" ] Re: Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) ["Mark or Travis" ] RE: Republicans, Democrats, Estate Tax (NJC) ["Mary E. Pitassi" ] Re: Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) ["Mary E. Pitassi" ] Re: Republicans, Democrats, Estate Tax (NJC) ["kakki" ] oops ["mack watson-bush" ] Re: JM on GMA and in RS [Bobsart48@aol.com] Re: Estate tax.... short PC (NJC) [] Re: Republicans, Democrats, Estate Tax (NJC) ["kakki" ] Fw: njc save your parents money for youself, scam medicaid, all legal ["k] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:20:52 +0000 From: Stephen Pelton Subject: Travelogue in UK Anyone know if Travelogue will be released in the UK on the same date as in the USA...? SP in London ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:37:57 -0800 From: Steve Dulson Subject: Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) Kakki wrote: >The majority of liberal/Democrat >voters are now concentrated along the coastal region (where you have to be >ultra rich to own property and make an upper range income to live) Gosh, does that make me part of the ultra rich! Whoda thunk it?!? :) I'll bet you never thought *I'D* be jumping into this fray, huh Kakki? But I always read your posts, unlike some others'. Steve, a condo owner in beautiful Costa Mesa-by-the-Sea. - -- ######################################################## Steve Dulson Costa Mesa CA steve@psitech.com "The Tinker's Own" http://www.tinkersown.com "The Living Tradition Concert Series" http://www.thelivingtradition.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:27:53 +0000 (GMT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Jamie=20Zubairi?= Subject: Re: Travelogue in UK I have heard nothing about it being released in the UK but if you go to play.com they do it for 16.99 delivered. Just a tip Jamie Zoob Stephen Pelton wrote:Anyone know if Travelogue will be released in the UK on the same date as in the USA...? SP in London - --------------------------------- Get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:28:19 -0800 From: "Brenda" Subject: RE: Estate tax.... long PC (NJC) On 31 Oct 2002 at 15:47, blckcrow@chorus.net wrote: > I would consider small business owners "common people." And it sounds > like, in that particular instance, the repeal of the tax actually had > some direct applicability. Well, I consider them "common people" as well but I was using the term in the context in which you used it - people who would never have to pay the estate tax. > > Beyond that, however, I do think that once the term "death tax" got > out into common usage, it took on a life of its own, with many > thinking it applied to people with far fewer assets than small > business owners. > If anyone thought that, all they had to do was read what the estate tax is. After all it's not like this was a ballot measure that was going to be decided by voters and there was some campaign to deceive people so they would vote a particular way. > > P.S. Brenda, why were African-American business groups in particular > involved in this effort? I hadn't heard that, and would like to know > more. E-mail me privately, if you like. > Because there are many African-American businesses that get passed from generation to generation and the generation that is elderly right now is the first with significant numbers that can actually leave behind enough to have a capital impact. Also the number of minority businesses has grown by more than 150% in the last decade and revenue from minority businesses has grown by more than 325%. (I'm not trying to speak for the whole "community," but I think a lot of people see business ownership - no matter how small - as the only way to improve their living condition with any measure of control - particularly since blacks are still paid less and there's that small business of the glass ceiling. It's certainly why I went out on my own.) There are estimates that nearly 1 million black owned businesses will have to pay that 37-55%. Many of these businesses serve black communities and because the tax has to be paid in cash on assets and access to cash in the capital markets is limited for black business owners, it's expected that a significant number will sell their assets to pay the tax and go out of business. The Chicago Daily Defender, one of the oldest black daily newspapers in the country, went into bankruptcy because of the burden imposed by the estate tax. I'm surprised that you haven't heard about it because I remember seeing press coverage highlighting support from the Congressional Black Caucus and the National Black Chamber of Commerce among others. There were seven members of the CBC who co-sponsored the repeal bill and they did a number of press conferences to promote their support. It even turned up in an episode of "The West Wing" .... I wonder how much that show is influencing public views on policy, particularly when they grab so many stories from the headlines. B ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:42:35 -0500 From: Deb Messling Subject: RE: Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) A cute little anecdote on this: I work in a public library. Today, one our patrons requested an interlibrary loan for a book about how to avoid paying taxes. Of course, we will work diligently to fill his request. Thank goodness the taxpayers see fit to pay for this service. At 02:25 PM 10/31/02 -0600, you wrote: > And the Republicans ignore that some investments in our present and > future are worth paying for, even if it hurts now. They decline to > ask: tax and spend *for what*? Is it worth it? Can some things be done > best, or done only, by government? - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Deb Messling -^..^- messling@enter.net - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.408 / Virus Database: 230 - Release Date: 10/24/02 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:56:35 -0500 From: vince Subject: Re: Estate tax.... short PC (NJC) Brenda wrote: > The Chicago Daily Defender, one of the oldest black daily newspapers in the > country, went into bankruptcy because of the burden imposed by the estate tax. This simply is untrue. Totally untrue. The Defender has had a long struggle with financial problems, as have many African American papers, that had nothing to do with the estate tax. Gees. The ad base and circulation bases have been decreasing steadily because of the increased coverage of black communities by established "majority" papers. Plus, and this is very true in the Defender situation, the probate problems are very complex, many heirs, who has the controlling interest, long standing family problems, and what was set up in what trust, but the probate problems have nothing to do with the estate tax. Nothing at all. I should also add that I work in probate, probably 40% of my day is on probate cases, and I have done probate and financial planning for 15 years. We have never had one, again, not one case where there has been a federal estate tax paid, and I live in an area where there are large family farms. With the marital tax deductions and all the tax planning mechanisms out there, the estate tax is a rarity and paid by the very rich, the very few. And I invite anyone to attend with me the next year's worth of seminars that I will attend sponsored by PESI, NBI, Michigan's state bar probate section, ICLE, and whatever else comes along - and show me where more than 1-2% of the population, the very richest, are subject the estate tax. Less oratory and polemic and more reality helps in these discussions. Vince ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:01:48 -0600 From: Subject: RE: Estate tax (NJC, Long, PC) Brenda wrote: I'm surprised that you haven't heard about it because I remember seeing press coverage highlighting support from the Congressional Black Caucus and the National Black Chamber of Commerce among others. Well, Im flattered if anyone thinks otherwise, but I probably do miss SOME press coverage! There are those pesky and demanding obligations called Working. Eating. Occasionally, even Exercising, although probably not as much as my doctor would like! And one thing I dont do in my so-called leisure time is watch West Wing. Seriously, I do my level best to stay informed, but I dont claim to be perfect, and frankly, I missed that one. Thanks for the information. It makes sense, and was quite informative. You also wrote: If anyone thought that, all they had to do was read what the estate tax is. After all it's not like this was a ballot measure that was going to be decided by voters and there was some campaign to deceive people so they would vote a particular way. RE: your first sentence: that was my point, too. I specifically stated that people have the ultimate responsibility to stay informed. It was also my point though that, unfortunately (see example directly above) many people do not or will not, for one reason or another. I believe that both parties have taken advantage of that fact. And, while voters werent directly deciding the fate of the estate tax by referendum, they were electing officials who would be doing soand many other things besides. Mary P., Signing off for the day, and going off toahemExercise. ;-) P.S. Even for small business owners, it's still only a "death tax" if you DIE WITH AN *ESTATE*! Couldn't resist. Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky. SIGH. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:21:34 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: Joni on politics...made in the USA...globalism NJC > yes, the wages are lower but so is the cost of living...by a lot... > This is just a sop to our consciences, one i have ehard before. The fact is they may be paid well in comparison to being dirt poor but are still paid low and are still poor whyile we rich can buy what we want more cheaply at their expense. No matter how one dresses it up it still stinks. bw colin TANTRA LHASA APSO (reg 1982) colin@tantra-apso.com http://www.tantra-apso.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:22:45 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: brussels njc Lieve is BELGIAN which is what reminded me!!!!! FMYFL@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/31/2002 2:08:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, > colin@tantra-apso.com writes: > > > >> Lieve reminded me we are going off to Brussels on Saturday to pick a >> bitch up from the airport there. > > LOL Colin !!! For new listers who don't know that you breed dogs, > your sentence is kind of funny. :~) Of course we all know Lieve is > the sweetest girl in the world. > > Jimmy - -- bw colin TANTRA LHASA APSO (reg 1982) colin@tantra-apso.com http://www.tantra-apso.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:25:52 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) > Gee, Mary, I can only think of two: > > 1. "I didn't inhale." not proven! We don't know if he sucked it down or not. > > > 2. "I never had sex with that woman." well we know he did although we know for sure he did not suck it down. > > > --Bob, who for some reason prefers lies from Democrats - -- bw colin TANTRA LHASA APSO (reg 1982) colin@tantra-apso.com http://www.tantra-apso.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:31:09 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: Estate tax (NJC) > (Pro death penalty still, and strangely enough so are Pro Lifers! And many Good Xtians! > ~ - -- bw colin TANTRA LHASA APSO (reg 1982) colin@tantra-apso.com http://www.tantra-apso.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:32:30 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) > #2 is true if Clinton believes it's sex only if intercourse is > involved. I know people who actually believe that. It seems to be a > Southern thing. I am NOT Southern and know exactly what they mean when they say it isn't sex unless it is the whole hog! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20:23:47 EST From: Kardinel@aol.com Subject: Re: JMDL Digest V2002 #452 I agree with you on these albums. The early Judy Collins were beautiful. I used to own a copy of Golden Apples. Maybe I will get the cd with the first two albums. I think re the Joni albums- I liked all of them and some I love except those two horrors from the 80's. I keep saying it but can't believe DED was her., The lyrics aren't good nor the music or the cover. But Joni picked up again in the 90's and have loved some of her recent cds. You have good taste. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20:54:26 -0500 From: vince Subject: Re: Estate tax.... short PC (NJC) Since I know that I am going to be attacked for what I say about the Defender; here is a link: http://www.blackjournalism.com/defender.htm Now, I found a story on the internet which tries to make this an estate tax thing, but that is pure political bullshit. That link (because I am fair) is http://www.homestead.com/northerncityjournal/files/vol01_25.html If you check the website out, it is a private opinion site with a religious and political bent. The odd facts are that I work in probate, estate planning and trusts, grew up in Chicago, sold the Defender, and have an avid interest in media (subscribe to CJR, WJR, Brill's Content) and have read the probate papers because this is a great case study in probate case law. There was a dispute within the family about control of the paper and the case dragged on in the Cook County probate Court because it was complex, involving such juicy items as family feuds, the law against perpetuities, and control of the African American paper passing out of the family into an institutional - and white owned- trustee, Northern Trust, which some family members filed in court to prevent, and then, change. Further, while the office in which I worked has never handled a probate estate where there has been payment of the federal estate tax, which shows the sparing nature of the tax, my employer, and former partner, the infamous Pete (and why did I ever break with a rich guy, dumb shit that I am), his parent's estates eventually ended with payment of the federal estate tax. Our office did not handle that estate because of course we had a vested interest but that is the only estate tax probate that we have been close to. And I can tell you that was ultimately taxed was a very small percentage of what the real assets were, thanks to trusts and other such devices of financial planning. (There are so many types of trusts available, from the old reliable Q-TIP to the new "special needs" trust where the legal fiction is the money is donated to a tax exempt foundation, which in fact does indeed eventually get the money.) And the family happily paid the estate tax considering the size of the corpus of the trust they finally got. What has not been considered in the estate tax debate is the role it plays in gifts to non profits. Without the tax benefits of gifts to non profit corporations to avoid the estate tax, a lot of those gifts would not get made. A lot of charitable contributions are tax motivated. Next time your local hospital or church or women's shelter or children's program runs a capital funds drive, next time you see a large gift to some charity, get close to the financial people involved and ask questions... a lot of charity in this country, the big bucks giving, is financial planning to avoid the estate tax and why do you think a real repeal of the estate tax has not happened? Because the non profits in this country prevailed enough in Congress to say, you trying to kill us? And what was the seeming repeal of the estate tax by the Republicans in 2001 was a temporary percentage annual phase out with a sunset provision so the estate tax returns in full force in 2011 or 2012. And what that means is that what the Congress and Bush did in 2001 was a great bonanza to financial planners and estate planning attorneys everywhere because the whole financial tax situation of a large estate will now depend on what you die in prior to 2011, or whether you make it to 2012. It made everything more complicated and has resulted in a whole new lucrative field of tax avoidance financial planning. And while I am surely no Republican, if anyone doubts the objectivity of this paragraph, you are invited to come with me next May to the Michigan state bar Estate Planning seminar at Acme, Michigan, where the nuances of the estate tax are of great fascination. This has been my most boring post ever, which is saying a lot. Anyone who has read this far, thank you. I tried to stay away from the whole thread and have been no where near as interesting as any one else, but probate/financial probate (and real estate) pays my salary which allows me to slum as a minister and Joni fan. However, it is very helpful as a minister since I can not only show you how to leave a portion of your estate to the church or other non profit of your choice in your will or trust., I can draft the damn thing up and set you down in front of the lawyer, as well as witness and notarize all your documents... and offer a prayer of thanksgiving afterwards... real full service... Vince > it was written: > > > The Chicago Daily Defender, one of the oldest black daily newspapers in the > > country, went into bankruptcy because of the burden imposed by the estate tax. > I replied: > > This simply is untrue. > > Totally untrue. > > The Defender has had a long struggle with financial problems, as have many African American > papers, that had nothing to do with the estate tax. Gees. The ad base and circulation bases > have been decreasing steadily because of the increased coverage of black communities by > established "majority" papers. > > Plus, and this is very true in the Defender situation, the probate problems are very complex, > many heirs, who has the controlling interest, long standing family problems, and what was set > up in what trust, but the probate problems have nothing to do with the estate tax. Nothing at > all. here is some of the text of the article: Chicago Daily Defender remains in Black hands The nation's most prestigious Black daily newspaper will apparently remain Black-owned. The heirs of longtime publisher John H. Sengstacke Sr., who died in 1997, have decided not to sell the newspaper to a white buyer, according to an article by Frederick H. Lowe in NABJ Update (February/March 1999). The Sengstacke family "will continue to own The Defender," said James H. Lowry, trustee of the Sengstacke estate. Cook County Circuit Court Judge Thomas A. Hett named Mr. Lowry, trustee of the estate in February. He replaced Northern Trust Co., one of Chicago's largest banks, which had been corporate trustee of Mr. Sengstacke's estate since 1975. In Feb. 1998, Mr. Sengstacke's heirs petitioned the Cook County Circuit Court to remove Northern Trust as trustee, which led to Mr. Lowry's appointment one year later. During the year the estate's trusteeship was in limbo, Crain's Chicago Business reported that a Detroit businessman had offered to buy The Defender. Northern Trust spokesperson Sue Ragaes confirmed that the bank had received an offer for the newspaper, but was prevented from acting on the offer because of the court proceedings. Robert Sengstacke Abbot founded The Defender as a weekly in 1905 and built it into one of the nation's most successful Black-owned papers. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:03:07 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: Republicans, Democrats, Estate Tax (NJC) Mary wrote: > Yes, I tried to speak to those by my inclusion of "some libertarians, and others." I do not consider libertarians' >concerns to be necessarily financial or religious: I see them as fundamentally different in origin. I'd be happy if you >wished to articulate more specific reasons that you know of for identifying with the Republican party. Libertarians are changing - there are a number who could be considered more left at this point than right. I think in many cases people vote Republican not because they identify with a particular philosophy or ideology, (as I perceive is more a motivation for Democrats) but just out of practical concerns involving national defense, taxation, crime, etc. It can be just one issue that sways them to vote one side vs. the other. We read a lot about the independent, moderate, swing voters in the middle. They are not apparently firmly committed to either political pole - but vote independently based on issues. Sometimes a Republican candidate will come along who has a good reputation with all political sides and who defies the usual characterizations, such as Richard Riordan. Riordan is a Republican, but in his actions is a consistent classic liberal, in the best sense. He appealed to huge numbers of people from all parties in California. A multi-millionaire who not only gave away millions to the immigrant poor in L.A. but actively and consistently worked to help them. At the same time, he did wonders to fix the city's infrastructure and put redevelopment on the fast track. As mayor of L.A. he only took $1.00 a year as salary. What I have been most amazed by in the past few years is the number of my friends who were previously staunchly left who have done complete turnarounds politically. They did not start voting Republican because of any of the usual reasons, but simply because they were completely turned off by the actions and rhetoric of some of the representatives on the left in recent years. Another example of how extreme rhetoric may stir up and energize some of the party faithful, but also can be very risky when it so decisively alienates them and causes them to leave the party. Just to give both sides, I was also turned off by Republican rhetoric for years and they lost me on a number of votes. As for the Estate tax, I am not well read on the issue, but think Brenda has made some critically good points about it. I have heard of farm families in California who would be put out of business by it. A $1 or $2 million estate is California where property values are through the roof, is probably comparable in some instances to a $150,000 "estate" in Wisconsin. Farm families in Wisconsin may never be affected by it, but in California it is all relative - their farm would effectively be confiscated and they would end up with nothing. On the philosophical side, it is fair or equitable to tax an asset that was acquired with money that had already been taxed before? Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:10:30 -0500 From: vince Subject: Re: Republicans, Democrats, Estate Tax (NJC) kakki wrote: > I have heard of farm families in > California who would be put out of business by it. A $1 or $2 million > estate is California where property values are through the roof, is > probably comparable in some instances to a $150,000 "estate" in Wisconsin. > Farm families in Wisconsin may never be affected by it, but in California it > is all relative - their farm would effectively be confiscated and they would > end up with nothing. On the philosophical side, it is fair or equitable to > tax an asset that was acquired with money that had already been taxed > before? Kakki, an "estate" in Wisconsin is liable to be "cute" to the Californian in a $1 or $2 million home, but the Wisconsin "estate" is liable to be worth more. And of course, for the $1 or $2 million California "estate" and the Wisconsin farm, neither will be affected by estate tax given the marital deductions and the slightest financial planning, or for a single person, the regular exemption and slightly more financial planning. To put "estate" in quotation marks and dismiss Wisconsin farmers was not intentional, but as a rural midwesterner - Wisconsin is just Michigan on the wrong side of the lake - it comes across wrong, condescending, in a way that I know that you did not mean at all. But calculate what 120-160 acres of farm land is worth, for a small farm, the house, farm and out buildings, a few $100,000 combines, tractors, etc., [have you priced an end-loader lately? :-) ] plus the value of the business, other equipment.. it adds up. I know you didn't mean it that way. And yes, philosophically, very fair. That is why it was a part of the philosophy of the founding fathers of this country, who were determined to prevent an aristocracy from developing in this country. The transfer of tax from one generation is fair game for taxation - since this happens among the very rich - a hell of a lot more than say, sales tax on medicine and food for the poor, or any type of income taxation on the poor or working class. The rich want all the benefits of this country and don't want to pay for it. If they don't want to support this country, let them leave it and go off shore... oh wait, that is already being done as a tax dodge. :-) Vince ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:21:47 -0400 From: Bruce Kimerer Subject: Re: Judy C (njc) I'd like to chime in on the Judy Collins thread. I too feel that Who Knows Where the Time Goes is a perfect record. From the absolutely joyous opening track to the murderous finale. The band behind her, especially the shimmering Stills guitar, create an atmosphere that is very specific to that record, making it a beautifully coherent piece. And her rendition of the title tune is still one of the most poignant recordings I think I've ever heard. Still get goosebumps every time I hear it. On another Judy note: Someone mentioned an album with her on solo piano that's available on her website. I looked, but wasn't able to tell which one it might be. Can someone tell me the title? Thanks Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:48:56 -0800 From: "Mark or Travis" Subject: Re: Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) But to style it as a "death tax," when the vast majority of Americans who die will never, ever have to pay it, is simply, in my view, intellectually dishonest. Well I for one am greatly relieved to know that *most* people who die won't have to pay an estate tax. My only concern is how do they get those few dead people to pay up? Mark E in Seattle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:28:03 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) Can you all tell me who is styling it this way? I swear the first I have heard of it referred to as a "death" tax is today on the list. I have always heard it referred to as an estate tax. Kakki > But to style it as a "death tax," when the vast majority of Americans who > die will never, ever have to pay it, is simply, in my view, intellectually > dishonest. > > Well I for one am greatly relieved to know that *most* people who die won't > have to pay an estate tax. My only concern is how do they get those few > dead people to pay up? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:15:22 -0600 From: "Mary E. Pitassi" Subject: RE: Republicans, Democrats, Estate Tax (NJC) Kakki wrote: "I think in many cases people vote Republican not because they identify with a particular philosophy or ideology, (as I perceive is more a motivation for Democrats) but just out of practical concerns involving national defense, taxation, crime, etc." I guess "ideology" is in the eye of the beholder. I could turn this around and say that, in many cases, it seems that Democrats are less inclined to identify with a particular philosophy or ideology, which I perceive is more a motivation for Republicans, but rather, out of practical concerns involving the environment, reproductive rights, worker safety and civil liberties, and civil rights. The parallelism simply struck me as a little odd. What makes one set of "practical concerns" an ideology, and the other, not? That's really a rhetorical question. Mary P. - --she's baaaacck (but not for long). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:20:00 -0500 From: vince Subject: njc save your parents money for youself, scam medicaid, all legal A few weeks ago, couple comes into the office, moderate wealth, maybe $500,000 total. No federal estate tax, not with per person exemption of about $750,000 at this time. No Michigan estate tax, for our estate tax kicks in at federal levels. But they want to be eligible for Medicaid on the grounds they have no assets to pay for their medical care, and thus transfer their entire estate to their children rather than pay for their medical care. Routine! And while we have no universal health care, we have medicaid for the wealthy, routine, and legal! What we do - what I do, its my job - is draw up an irrevocable trust wherein the couple cannot control their assets anymore - their chosen trustee can, a professional trustee, an institution, an adult child - which places all the assets, the house, the stocks, the mutual funds, the cds, the whatever, in the irrevocable trust. Now our couple no longer own their property, the trust does! We fund the couple at no more than $2,000 a person at any time in any calendar month period - although the trustee pays for everything else, so this $2 thou is just spending money - not too shabby! The trust pays all the taxes, utilities, upkeep on the house, whatever, all expenses of the beneficiaries, who are our original couple with the half million. Any income is received by the trust as an asset of the trust. The time line is 3 or 5 years, it was recently changed, and once that time period has passed, the law assumes that the transfer of assets to the trust was not done to avoid medicaid!!!!!!! And now, our couple qualifies for medicaid!!!!!!! All their doctor, medical, nursing home, prescriptions, will be covered by medicaid!!!!!!! (Your mother may be paying full price for her prescriptions because we have no prescription coverage for your mom who has a small home, a car, a small savings, and lives on social security.) And the beauty part is, that trust keeps on growing if it is invested well, and when our couple die, all that money will go to the children instead of having gone to pay for the couple's medical costs the last years of their lives. Yes, boys and girls, we finance medical care for those rich enough to afford an irrevocable trust, but we have do not for the people who are not wealthy enough to have an irrevocable trust. God Bless Americans with Money! Medicaid (tax dollars) has been used as a device to pay the medical needs of this couple and pass their untouched money to their children, and none of this is taxed! You gotta love it! Our office does a lot of these; I can kick one off the computer faster than you can say, "is that fair?" So for those very few people who actually have to pay the estate tax - thank God someone with money is paying a tax! Vince ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:27:50 -0500 From: vince Subject: lingo NJC kakki wrote: > Can you all tell me who is styling it this way? I swear the first I have > heard of it referred to as a "death" tax is today on the list. I have > always heard it referred to as an estate tax. > Any speech by George W Bush the last four-five-six years - speeches by leading Republicans in the Senate and the House going back to the Contract on, I mean, with America back to G W H Bush back to Reagan death tax was a spin phrase that arose with the Reagan campaign. Reagan also brought the disrespectful use of the term "Democrat" party rather than the proper grammar of Democratic Party; I always thought in return, we should call the GOP the "Repubs." The Reagan thinking was that America was democratic and he did not want to apply that nobel phrase to the party he was against, so he coined the term "Democrat" party to not call them Democratic. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:29:44 -0600 From: "Mary E. Pitassi" Subject: Re: Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) Republicans are styling it this way, and I've read and heard the phrase in newspapers and talk shows for at least several years now. The idea, as I see it, appears to be to not-so-subtly attack the tax as unfair (as in: What will they do next? Tax the pennies on your eyes? Shades of George Harrison!). The usage may also serve as a dig at the "tax-and-spend" party and imply, as I stated earlier, that the tax affects a far greater number of Americans than it in fact does. You have probably always heard it referred to as the estate tax because you work in a law office. "Estate tax" is its legally correct name, and it does not surprise me that the lawyers you have worked with use it. Mary P. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "kakki" To: "Mark or Travis" ; ; ; Cc: Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:28 PM Subject: Re: Rich Republicans, and Democrats (NJC) > Can you all tell me who is styling it this way? I swear the first I have > heard of it referred to as a "death" tax is today on the list. I have > always heard it referred to as an estate tax. > > Kakki > > > But to style it as a "death tax," when the vast majority of Americans who > > die will never, ever have to pay it, is simply, in my view, intellectually > > dishonest. > > > > Well I for one am greatly relieved to know that *most* people who die > won't > > have to pay an estate tax. My only concern is how do they get those few > > dead people to pay up? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:41:36 EST From: Murphycopy@aol.com Subject: interesting november birthdays near joni's - njc, really One of the pluses of not having a life is I get lots of opportunities to read things like celebrity birthday lists. Here are a few early November birthdays for some entertainers JMDLers may like. (Their new birthday ages are in parentheses -- although I do love what Cindy Lauper one said when asked her age: "What does it matter how old I am? I'm not a car!") November 1: Lyle Lovett (45) November 2: k.d. lang (41) November 3: Lulu (54) November 4: Yanni (48) Sean "Puff Daddy"/"P. Diddy" Combs (33) November 5: BRYAN Adams (43) and RYAN Adams (28) ! ! ! (What are the chances of THAT!) Ike Turner (71) Art Garfunkle (61) Peter Noone (55) Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead (31) November 6: Glenn Frey (54) Corey Glover of Living Color (38) November 7: Joni Mitchell (59) Mary Travers of Peter, Paul and Mary (65) Johnny Rivers (60) November 8: Patti Page (75) Bonnie Raitt (53) Rickie Lee Jones (48) That's all! Time to go alphabetize my turtlenecks by color . . . --Bob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:40:11 -0500 (EST) From: Subject: Re: Estate tax.... short PC (NJC) > Brenda wrote: > >> The Chicago Daily Defender, one of the oldest black daily newspapers >> in the country, went into bankruptcy because of the burden imposed by >> the estate tax. > > This simply is untrue. > > Totally untrue. > It was certainly not my intention to mislead anyone. I have no first hand knowledge of what happened to The Defender. The Defender was talked about by at least one of the African-American supporters of the repeal (head of the National Black Chamber of Commerce). Mary asked about those supporters so I tried to answer her question with reasons I had seen or heard sited by those supporters. I thought about using the words, "it's claimed" because I'm fully aware of the plight of black newspapers and I didn't have time to verify the statement, but having work to do and my own business to run, I was not as careful as I could have been. I had no idea it would produce such a response..... I hope the original point isn't lost in all this - that there were Democrats who supported the repeal ACTING in a manner that would be seen as a supporting an agenda that is "perceived" to be Republican. Brenda ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20:05:44 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: Republicans, Democrats, Estate Tax (NJC) Eek. > Kakki, an "estate" in Wisconsin is liable to be "cute" to the Californian in a > $1 or $2 million home, but the Wisconsin "estate" is liable to be worth more. > And of course, for the $1 or $2 million California "estate" and the Wisconsin > farm, neither will be affected by estate tax given the marital deductions and > the slightest financial planning, or for a single person, the regular exemption > and slightly more financial planning. I'll try it again. Family farm in California = $2 milliion. Same type of family farm (comparable house, acreage, relative income) in Wisconsin = $150,000. Cost of living and doing business in California = $XXX - cost of living and doing business in Wisconsin = $X. Under the law one effectively gets confiscated from the family heirs and one doesn't. Fair? No, not by any stretch. Economics vary considerably across the U.S. It's not the family in California's "fault" that some politician from another part of the country doesn't understand economic variables and just thinks $2 million sounds like a ton of money and a bit too much to be exempted from taxes. If the end result is that one citizen has property they and their family worked hard for years to acquire and maintain confiscated and one doesn't because the economic numbers in their part of the country is different, that is wrong and stupid. If people really think it is so crucial to have this estate tax, then the least they could do is come up with a plan based on individual, regional economic factors rather than an across the board arbitrary amount. > To put "estate" in quotation marks and dismiss Wisconsin farmers was not > intentional, but as a rural midwesterner - Wisconsin is just Michigan on the > wrong side of the lake - it comes across wrong, condescending, in a way that I > know that you did not mean at all. No, no, of course I wasn't being condescending. Previous posts seem to make a point about an ESTATE implying it was like some huge mansion worth millions of dollars owned by a rich person. On the other hand, if I hadn't put it in quotation marks, I'm sure someone here would have questioned me for equating a family farm with an ESTATE and say I don't know the difference. > And yes, philosophically, very fair. That is why it was a part of the > philosophy of the founding fathers of this country, who were determined to > prevent an aristocracy from developing in this country. ! Most of the founders were wealthy landowners trying to escape the aristocracy taking a piece of their earnings. I read recently that the revolution started after their outrage at taxes being raised to 3%. Hahahaha!!! (My, how times have changed). The founding fathers wanted people to have freedom, including economic freedom and personal property protections. > The rich want all the benefits of this country and don't want to pay for it. How can you say that? I've heard that the upper 2% of income earners pay something like 50% of the taxes. We are taxed, taxed, taxed on everthing! It is fecking oppressive. We are approaching slavery the way we are taxed. Even serfs in medieval times only had to work for their lords and masters for like 10 years and then were FREE. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:05:37 -0600 From: "mack watson-bush" Subject: [none] clive davis on donahue discussing janis. breaks the heart. mack ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:06:16 -0600 From: "mack watson-bush" Subject: oops sorry joni onlies. janis does that to me. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:05:32 EST From: Bobsart48@aol.com Subject: Re: JM on GMA and in RS In a message dated 10/31/02 5:21:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, les@jmdl.com writes: > 1985: Joni appeared on the U.S. "Good Morning America" TV program Is this the show I saw where a guy from the audience asks Joni to marry him, and Harry Smith chimes in (on time) "Hey, wait a minute pal, get in line !" ? Or was that a different show ? Also, on a plane to San Diego last week, I confess that I bought the Women in Rock RS issue (my second time ever, but I had 5 hours to kill and need to improve my knowledge of who's out there). Well, in the matter of written superlatives (not previously mentioned here in the discussions), I noticed that - once again - Joni was the only person among the 29 featured who had anything really amazing written about her. Each sketch began with an intro by the author, followed by an interview. Joni's intro included the following: "Still too oroginal, too jazzy, to spawn any real imitators, though many have tried" "Let's face the facts: Joni MItchell is one of the greatest songwriters ever - - no gender required" "Joni Mitchell always has been, and always will be, utterly irreplaceable". No other RS comment about any of the other artists featured even came close to those. And this from a magazine that could have been re-dubbed "Running Feud" magazine, as far as Joni is concerned. (As previously noted, Blue was ranked as the #2 "woman's" album of all time, and the release of STAS was labelled as one of the defining moments in the 65 year time line of events). It really is amazing how many 'over the top' compliments she has received in print. Plenty of critical acclaim, really - just not mass adulation. Bob S. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:03:56 -0500 (EST) From: Subject: Re: Estate tax.... short PC (NJC) > Since I know that I am going to be attacked for what I say about the > Defender; here is a link: Why do you think you are going to be attacked? > > http://www.blackjournalism.com/defender.htm > > Now, I found a story on the internet which tries to make this an estate > tax thing, but that is pure political bullshit. That link (because I am > fair) is > http://www.homestead.com/northerncityjournal/files/vol01_25.html > > If you check the website out, it is a private opinion site with a > religious and political bent. Here are two more links - one written by the President of the National Newspaper Association that talks about the estate tax generally and the Defender specifically: http://www.naa.org/artpage.cfm?AID=2890&SID=1039 and one from Editor & Publisher http://www.targetmarketnews.com/EandPstory.htm Neither one of these is inherently religious or political as far as I can tell. One mentions a gag order, so I'm wondering, was your office involved with this specifically? Any public information on how the taxes got paid? Or is the 3 or 4 million dollar tax bill referred to in these articles nonexistent? Brenda ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20:29:59 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: Republicans, Democrats, Estate Tax (NJC) Mary wrote: > I guess "ideology" is in the eye of the beholder. I could turn this around > and say that, in many cases, it seems that Democrats are less inclined to > identify with a particular philosophy or ideology, which I perceive is more a > motivation for Republicans, but rather, out of practical concerns involving > the environment, reproductive rights, worker safety and civil liberties, and > civil rights. > The parallelism simply struck me as a little odd. What makes one set of > "practical concerns" an ideology, and the other, not? Hmmm, I'll try to explain it from my own personal perspective. I've watched the progressive strides in environmental controls, reproductive rights worker safety and civil rights all proceed over my lifetime of 40+ years. To me the goals worked toward have been accomplished. The laws and enforcements are well in place. So I think "check" - that one is resolved now. Done deal. Now, what's next? But when I hear political platforms still being based on these issues year after year like NOTHING has ever been done or resolved, I shake my head in wonderment and think are there not other issues we should be looking out now? That is where I perceive that some people are more caught up in an ideology rather and addressing other pressing issues, real time. Again being from California, I have a perspective and experience that differs from some in other parts of the country. California is the most overladen and regulated with laws upon laws into redundancy on these issues, that it just seems a bit crazy, not to mention inefficient, to me for people still to be so focused on them. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:27:36 -0500 (EST) From: Subject: Re: Estate Tax and financial planning (NJC) > Kakki, an "estate" in Wisconsin is liable to be "cute" to the > Californian in a $1 or $2 million home, but the Wisconsin "estate" is > liable to be worth more. And of course, for the $1 or $2 million > California "estate" and the Wisconsin farm, neither will be affected by > estate tax given the marital deductions and the slightest financial > planning, or for a single person, the regular exemption and slightly > more financial planning. > Vince, I think this comment about financial planning is really key. My great uncle passed away earlier this year. He was 92. He was completely unwilling to talk with anyone about a will or anything else. He was admittedly superstitious about discussing his death. His estate was not insignificant - more than half a million dollars. In my own experience, the views he held are not uncommon among older black folks. B ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 01:00:05 -0600 From: "kasey simpson" Subject: Fw: njc save your parents money for youself, scam medicaid, all legal Vince, Just how much SS did this man and woman pay that they will never see? How much tax have they poured into the system that they will never see? How many years did they work and do without so they could retire? They scam the system? There wouldn't be a system without them. But I guess they should keep giving to the system, and paying the taxes, and their kids can pay the taxes so we can fund more of the endless, mindless programs. Kasey A few weeks ago, couple comes into the office, moderate wealth, maybe $500,000 total. No federal estate tax, not with per person exemption of about $750,000 at this time. No Michigan estate tax, for our estate tax kicks in at federal levels. But they want to be eligible for Medicaid on the grounds they have no assets to pay for their medical care, and thus transfer their entire estate to their children rather than pay for their medical care. Routine! And while we have no universal health care, we have medicaid for the wealthy, routine, and legal! What we do - what I do, its my job - is draw up an irrevocable trust wherein the couple cannot control their assets anymore - their chosen trustee can, a professional trustee, an institution, an adult child - which places all the assets, the house, the stocks, the mutual funds, the cds, the whatever, in the irrevocable trust. Now our couple no longer own their property, the trust does! We fund the couple at no more than $2,000 a person at any time in any calendar month period - although the trustee pays for everything else, so this $2 thou is just spending money - not too shabby! The trust pays all the taxes, utilities, upkeep on the house, whatever, all expenses of the beneficiaries, who are our original couple with the half million. Any income is received by the trust as an asset of the trust. The time line is 3 or 5 years, it was recently changed, and once that time period has passed, the law assumes that the transfer of assets to the trust was not done to avoid medicaid!!!!!!! And now, our couple qualifies for medicaid!!!!!!! All their doctor, medical, nursing home, prescriptions, will be covered by medicaid!!!!!!! (Your mother may be paying full price for her prescriptions because we have no prescription coverage for your mom who has a small home, a car, a small savings, and lives on social security.) And the beauty part is, that trust keeps on growing if it is invested well, and when our couple die, all that money will go to the children instead of having gone to pay for the couple's medical costs the last years of their lives. Yes, boys and girls, we finance medical care for those rich enough to afford an irrevocable trust, but we have do not for the people who are not wealthy enough to have an irrevocable trust. God Bless Americans with Money! Medicaid (tax dollars) has been used as a device to pay the medical needs of this couple and pass their untouched money to their children, and none of this is taxed! You gotta love it! Our office does a lot of these; I can kick one off the computer faster than you can say, "is that fair?" So for those very few people who actually have to pay the estate tax - thank God someone with money is paying a tax! VinceGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2002 #453 ***************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe ------- Siquomb, isn't she? (http://www.siquomb.com/siquomb.cfm)