"A meaningful estate tax is needed to prevent our democracy from becoming a dynastic plutocracy."

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
I am talking about people like me, who start from nothing and work hard for every penny we make. We should not be taxed higher than trustfund babies getting inheritances from their parents they didn't lift a pinkie to earn.

What is interesting is the fact that those "trustfund babies" who you despise so much are still likely to pay more in capital gains taxes, on subsequent trades with their inherited money, than you will pay in income taxes during your entire lifetime.

How do ya like dem apples?! If anything, that fact should make you smile like a donut!

As a single renter making about 100K, I pay the highest tax rate possible, while receiving the fewest tax benefits, so I will not be lectured by some loser who wants to get his daddy's money tax free, or thinks it's moral to push the tax burden on people who work for a living and remove it from those who get money for simply being born into the right family and doing nothing.

Hey douchebag, I've earned every penny I have; and I don't stand to inherit much, if any, when my parents pass away - certainly not enough to be effected by the inheritance taxes. I've said as much at least 2 or 3 times in this very thread. I also make roughly the same amount of money as you, and get taxed at just as high a rate.

I'm arguing against inheritance taxes on principle - selective double taxation against certain families is just plain wrong.

So wake the fvck up, "loser," and quit letting your bitterness and jealousy get the best of you. Not everyone around here is only concerned with themselves!

Let me guess, you are worried your kids will have to pay taxes on the inheritance you leave them? Don't worry, you won't leave them enough money to qualify for estate tax. If you raise them right, they should make their own money, not rely on a tax free inheritance.
I mean for crying out loud, I am an orphan immigrant who lived in my grandparent's garage 12 years ago before I left for college. If I can make it, anyone can. If you are arguing against inheritance tax on principle, your principles are morally bankrupt. There is no principle in taxing work income higher than inheritance income. None what so ever.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
My little opinion....

It's easy for guys worth $40 billion to say they aren't taxed enough when higher taxes would still leave them with $30 billion.

All the money a person makes in their life is taxed. And then when they die it's all taxed again? That's just wrong.

All the money a person makes in their life is taxed, and then when they spend it's all taxed again? That's just wrong.

How is giving away money somehow special and doesn't deserve to be taxed when spending it does?

Just to be clear I'm not talking about sales tax. I'm talking if I pay you money for your labor.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

All the money a person makes in their life is taxed. And then when they die it's all taxed again? That's just wrong.

it's not taxed unles you spend it or give it to someone any money a person recieves by lottery, game show, stock market, inheritence whatever, is taxed.It doesn't matter where it came from!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

All the money a person makes in their life is taxed. And then when they die it's all taxed again? That's just wrong.

it's not taxed unles you spend it or give it to someone any money a person recieves by lottery, game show, stock market, inheritence whatever, is taxed.It doesn't matter where it came from!

Well I believe that it should matter when it comes from a blood relative.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

All the money a person makes in their life is taxed. And then when they die it's all taxed again? That's just wrong.

it's not taxed unles you spend it or give it to someone any money a person recieves by lottery, game show, stock market, inheritence whatever, is taxed.It doesn't matter where it came from!

Well I believe that it should matter when it comes from a blood relative.

Why? What is the societal benefit for taxing inheritances any differently than income from other sources? Remember the dead person isn't being taxed; dead people don't pay taxes.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

All the money a person makes in their life is taxed. And then when they die it's all taxed again? That's just wrong.

it's not taxed unles you spend it or give it to someone any money a person recieves by lottery, game show, stock market, inheritence whatever, is taxed.It doesn't matter where it came from!

Well I believe that it should matter when it comes from a blood relative.

Why? What is the societal benefit for taxing inheritances any differently than income from other sources? Remember the dead person isn't being taxed; dead people don't pay taxes.

And even if they did, why would we care? They certainly don't.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
it's not taxed unles you spend it or give it to someone any money a person recieves by lottery, game show, stock market, inheritence whatever, is taxed.It doesn't matter where it came from!

Well I believe that it should matter when it comes from a blood relative.

Why? What is the societal benefit for taxing inheritances any differently than income from other sources?

Who said we like taxes?

That's the crux right there, we stand in opposition with regards to who that money belongs to. You believe it belongs to society, thus socialism, we believe it belongs to the owner, thus conservatism.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
it's not taxed unles you spend it or give it to someone any money a person recieves by lottery, game show, stock market, inheritence whatever, is taxed.It doesn't matter where it came from!

Well I believe that it should matter when it comes from a blood relative.

Why? What is the societal benefit for taxing inheritances any differently than income from other sources?

Who said we like taxes?

That's the crux right there, we stand in opposition with regards to who that money belongs to. You believe it belongs to society, thus socialism, we believe it belongs to the owner, thus conservatism.

And thus decline of America, which is where "conservative" policies under Republican administrations are driving us, with their astronomic borrowing.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

All the money a person makes in their life is taxed. And then when they die it's all taxed again? That's just wrong.

it's not taxed unles you spend it or give it to someone any money a person recieves by lottery, game show, stock market, inheritence whatever, is taxed.It doesn't matter where it came from!

Well I believe that it should matter when it comes from a blood relative.

That's why we have special tax laws exempting moderate transfers of wealth between blood relatives.

You clearly lack any concept of the idea of dynasties and the threat they can pose to democracy and economic well-being for most Americans and to productivity.

So you object to the reigning in of the dynasties, while leaving them with *very* substantive benefits, and you fail to answer my question:

If you do have to tax a million dollars, does it best come from the poor, the middle class, the wealthy, or large estates?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: senseamp

And thus decline of America, which is where "conservative" policies under Republican administrations are driving us, with their astronomic borrowing.

QFT.

You get political popularity by spending money on interests. You get political popularity by having lower taxes.

Some would say that means you have to find a tradeoff, where you balance the two.

The republicans have decided you can have the best of both worlds, as long as you are willing to sell out the long-term interests of the nation with huge debt, for short-term political power.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: ironwing

Why? What is the societal benefit for taxing inheritances any differently than income from other sources?

Who said we like taxes?

That's the crux right there, we stand in opposition with regards to who that money belongs to. You believe it belongs to society, thus socialism, we believe it belongs to the owner, thus conservatism.

Whether to tax income at all is a separate question. Once we have decided to do so, what rationale is there for favoring recipients of inheritances over other income taxpayers? Why tax unearned income less than earned income?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic
Good. I want 100%. Been saying this for years. The ideal system of taxation is 0 taxes while alive and 100% back when you're dead. I sincerely doubt, however, that Warren is going to be willing to go that far (or at least not in public). Nor can I assume that a hack like the OP is going to accept the reasonable of the 0% while alive if it's 100% at death.

Then just leave income taxes the way they are but take 100% in inheritance tax.

That would not only utterly defeat the purpose of what I'm proposing but would be double-taxation.

Many (most?) people confuse the intertwining nature of wealth and power. Not being savers themselves, they mistakenly believe that wealth is income, and therefore believe that income taxes hurt "The Rich." Wrong wrong wrong WRONG. Stupid wrong. Income is not wealth, it is how one builds wealth. Wealth is assets. This should be obvious. So taxing income is, a very real way, how to keep the poor poor (or at least the middle class middle class). Taxing assets is how one gets at "the rich" (read Buffet's quote used as the thread title FFS), because the real rich make their incomes passively, from the dividends and interest from the investments, and then pass down that wealth from generation to generation.

LOL, all I was doing was pointing out how ridicuosly ludicrous your plan was. All your were trying to do is to muddy the waters of this conversation with it anyway.

People like to talk about what's "fair", but truthfully talking about taxes is an exercise in futlitlity becasue the vast majority of people lie through their teeth about it when the only thing they really want is the plan that they percieve as being the best (cheapest) for them.

And I plead "no contest" to the above charges.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

All the money a person makes in their life is taxed. And then when they die it's all taxed again? That's just wrong.

it's not taxed unles you spend it or give it to someone any money a person recieves by lottery, game show, stock market, inheritence whatever, is taxed.It doesn't matter where it came from!

Well I believe that it should matter when it comes from a blood relative.

That's why we have special tax laws exempting moderate transfers of wealth between blood relatives.

You clearly lack any concept of the idea of dynasties and the threat they can pose to democracy and economic well-being for most Americans and to productivity.

So you object to the reigning in of the dynasties, while leaving them with *very* substantive benefits, and you fail to answer my question:

So you admit that the actual and honest intent of the inheritance taxes is to "reign in" the rich?

I thought so. All of the other altruistic nonsense you've wrapped your responses with was bullshit.

You don't want them paying more because they can afford it, or because you need it. Rather, your entire intention is to destroy their wealthy families and bring them back down to your level.

Well, thank you for finally admitting as much - not that doing so makes you any less of a nitwit. :roll:

If you do have to tax a million dollars, does it best come from the poor, the middle class, the wealthy, or large estates?

You do realize that "large estates" are the same thing as, or belong to, the wealthy persons, right? They do not exist as some sort of inanimate fourth category that can be taxed without impacting real persons.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
You don't want them paying more because they can afford it, or because you need it.

I want them to pay more because "I" need it. I need them to help lower "MY" taxes!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: ironwing

Why? What is the societal benefit for taxing inheritances any differently than income from other sources?

Who said we like taxes?

That's the crux right there, we stand in opposition with regards to who that money belongs to. You believe it belongs to society, thus socialism, we believe it belongs to the owner, thus conservatism.

Whether to tax income at all is a separate question. Once we have decided to do so, what rationale is there for favoring recipients of inheritances over other income taxpayers? Why tax unearned income less than earned income?

inheritances != income.

If a set of parents pays the property taxes on a car in October, and then gives the car to their son or daughter in November, does the recipient have to retroactively pay property taxes for the previous year as well? no? I didn't think so...

the same should be true for any gift between parents and siblings. The moneys and assets were already taxed sufficiently by the parents during the earning process, and should NOT be considered NEW income for the sons and daughters when the parents simply pass away.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

All the money a person makes in their life is taxed. And then when they die it's all taxed again? That's just wrong.

it's not taxed unles you spend it or give it to someone any money a person recieves by lottery, game show, stock market, inheritence whatever, is taxed.It doesn't matter where it came from!

Well I believe that it should matter when it comes from a blood relative.

That's why we have special tax laws exempting moderate transfers of wealth between blood relatives.

You clearly lack any concept of the idea of dynasties and the threat they can pose to democracy and economic well-being for most Americans and to productivity.

So you object to the reigning in of the dynasties, while leaving them with *very* substantive benefits, and you fail to answer my question:

So you admit that the actual and honest intent of the inheritance taxes is to "reign in" the rich?

I thought so. All of the other altruistic nonsense you've wrapped your responses with was bullshit.

You don't want them paying more because they can afford it, or because you need it. Rather, your entire intention is to destroy their wealthy families and bring them back down to your level.

Well, thank you for finally admitting as much - not that doing so makes you any less of a nitwit. :roll:

If you do have to tax a million dollars, does it best come from the poor, the middle class, the wealthy, or large estates?

You do realize that "large estates" are the same thing as, or belong to, the wealthy persons, right? They do not exist as some sort of inanimate fourth category that can be taxed without impacting real persons.

You're finally getting it. Breaking up large concentrations of wealth is a good thing. Even if we simply burned the money. However, as long as we're breaking up large concentrations of wealth we might as well apply the money to the stuff we voted for ourselves. The estate tax is an excellent way to attack large concentrations of wealth in that it doesn't kick in until the wealth is passed on so that a person can make all they care to in life. The heirs simply pay income tax on their inheritance.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing

Whether to tax income at all is a separate question. Once we have decided to do so, what rationale is there for favoring recipients of inheritances over other income taxpayers? Why tax unearned income less than earned income?

inheritances != income.

Of course it is income. Again, dead people don't pay taxes. The income is gained by the heirs and they ought to pay taxes on it like any other income. I mow someone's lawn. He pays me for the service. Should my income from that job be exempt from income tax because he already paid income tax on the money he paid me with when he earned it?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

All the money a person makes in their life is taxed. And then when they die it's all taxed again? That's just wrong.

it's not taxed unles you spend it or give it to someone any money a person recieves by lottery, game show, stock market, inheritence whatever, is taxed.It doesn't matter where it came from!

Well I believe that it should matter when it comes from a blood relative.

That's why we have special tax laws exempting moderate transfers of wealth between blood relatives.

You clearly lack any concept of the idea of dynasties and the threat they can pose to democracy and economic well-being for most Americans and to productivity.

So you object to the reigning in of the dynasties, while leaving them with *very* substantive benefits, and you fail to answer my question:

So you admit that the actual and honest intent of the inheritance taxes is to "reign in" the rich?

I thought so. All of the other altruistic nonsense you've wrapped your responses with was bullshit.

You don't want them paying more because they can afford it, or because you need it. Rather, your entire intention is to destroy their wealthy families and bring them back down to your level.

Well, thank you for finally admitting as much - not that doing so makes you any less of a nitwit. :roll:

If you do have to tax a million dollars, does it best come from the poor, the middle class, the wealthy, or large estates?

You do realize that "large estates" are the same thing as, or belong to, the wealthy persons, right? They do not exist as some sort of inanimate fourth category that can be taxed without impacting real persons.

You're finally getting it. Breaking up large concentrations of wealth is a good thing. Even if we simply burned the money. However, as long as we're breaking up large concentrations of wealth we might as well apply the money to the stuff we voted for ourselves. The estate tax is an excellent way to attack large concentrations of wealth in that it doesn't kick in until the wealth is passed on so that a person can make all they care to in life. The heirs simply pay income tax on their inheritance.

Hugo? Mr Chavez? is that you? ...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing

Whether to tax income at all is a separate question. Once we have decided to do so, what rationale is there for favoring recipients of inheritances over other income taxpayers? Why tax unearned income less than earned income?

inheritances != income.

Of course it is income. Again, dead people don't pay taxes. The income is gained by the heirs and they ought to pay taxes on it like any other income. I mow someone's lawn. He pays me for the service. Should my income from that job be exempt from income tax because he already paid income tax on the money he paid me with when he earned it?

Once again, the circumstances are different when they involve relatives. I am against ANY/ALL gift taxes between relatives.

Once again: If a set of parents pays the property taxes on a car in October, and then gives the car to their son or daughter in November, does the receiving child have to retroactively pay property taxes for the previous year as well? no? I didn't think so...

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing

Whether to tax income at all is a separate question. Once we have decided to do so, what rationale is there for favoring recipients of inheritances over other income taxpayers? Why tax unearned income less than earned income?

inheritances != income.

Of course it is income. Again, dead people don't pay taxes. The income is gained by the heirs and they ought to pay taxes on it like any other income. I mow someone's lawn. He pays me for the service. Should my income from that job be exempt from income tax because he already paid income tax on the money he paid me with when he earned it?

Once again, the circumstances are different when they involve relatives. I am against ANY/ALL gift taxes between relatives.

Once again: If a set of parents pays the property taxes on a car in October, and then gives the car to their son or daughter in November, does the receiving child have to retroactively pay property taxes for the previous year as well? no? I didn't think so...

The property tax? No, the property tax was already paid for the year.

If the value of the car exceeded the annual gift exemption then the child would be subject to the income tax on the value of the car over and above the exemption level.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

palehorse74

If a set of parents pays the property taxes on a car in October, and then gives the car to their son or daughter in November, does the recipient have to retroactively pay property taxes for the previous year as well? no? I didn't think so...

In my state the reciepient has to pay sales tax based on the value of the automobile, if it is given or willed to the person.

 

[Jhhnn]

Once again, the circumstances are different when they involve relatives. I am against ANY/ALL gift taxes between relatives.

Essentially, you claim the same right as royalty- the right to unlimited inheritance based on the accident of birth, of assets passed down in perpetuity on the basis of divine right.

That went out ~200 years ago, with the French and American revolutions.

And you're being deliberately obtuse with this question, repeatedly-

Once again: If a set of parents pays the property taxes on a car in October, and then gives the car to their son or daughter in November, does the receiving child have to retroactively pay property taxes for the previous year as well? no? I didn't think so...

No, but they'll have to pay estimated fair value sales tax before they can get plates in their name, and will have to pay license fees a year in advance. The parents can claim a partial refund for the year in advance they paid... all of which varies by state. Technically, the child should pay federal gift tax if the value of the car exceeds the gift tax limit, which is $11K, iirc...

Estates don't just provide for blood relatives, anyway- the Grantor can specify any person or organization they choose... often to the great discomfiture of their children...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
palehorse74

If a set of parents pays the property taxes on a car in October, and then gives the car to their son or daughter in November, does the recipient have to retroactively pay property taxes for the previous year as well? no? I didn't think so...

In my state the reciepient has to pay sales tax based on the value of the automobile, if it is given or willed to the person.

I've never encountered anything like that. In most cases, parents can "sell" a car to their kids for $1, or simply just give it to them - even if the children are over the age of 18.

Also, when it comes to inheritance taxes, we're talking MUCH higher rates than your average sales taxes.

I still think it's ridiculous to tax income and assets belonging to the same family twice. I guess that's where I'll have to leave it because I don't know how to explain my position any further than I have.

We'll agree to disagree

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Estates don't just provide for blood relatives, anyway- the Grantor can specify any person or organization they choose... often to the great discomfiture of their children...

That is true, of course; and in those cases, I might agree that the money could be considered income of some sort or another.

That said, I still won't budge when it comes to the exchange of money and assets between relatives.

again, agree to disagree?

fair enough... Good luck!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As an alternative to a tax, people with great wealth could have the option of donating to approved charities of their choice. Setting up something to funnel money to a relative would be prohibited of course, but one could donate to education, medicine, disaster relief etc with no tax penalty. The remainder could go to the heirs. If I had a few billion, I'd rather donate it to energy research than Uncle Sam.