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

[Capitalizt]

To tax money at 40% when it's earned, then ANOTHER 40% when it's saved...absolutely I consider that a crime. It's tyrannical.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: palehorse74

IMO, taxing their lifelong incomes and gains, AGAIN, when they die, is essentially a fvcking crime. In terms of civil and human rights, I rank it up there with double-jeopardy.

It IS a crime...but jealousy and greed can often turn normal people into criminals..

I guess you think it's a crime to tax all forms of income that the wealthy rely on, like dividends, capital gains, and inheritances, and only the working stiffs should have to pay for the government in payroll, income, and sales taxes.

The word "inheritances" does not belong in that list - being that it is a direct result of the other listed earnings.

It's perfectly reasonable to tax income, gains, dividends, etc, throughout the lifetime of an earner. The problem I have is taxing them TWICE, on the same moneys, simply because the earner dies.

 

[Engineer]

If someone buys stock and it goes 10 fold in value and that person dies and leaves it to someone else, does the receiver pay capital gains taxes on the gains when he/she sells or stock? (out of curiosity)

By the way (OT), Buffet stated he paid 17% federal taxes last year and his secretary paid in excess of 30% (on TV interview). Also stated that not one single fortune 400 company CEO paid more than their executive secretaries. Damn, those secretaries must be paid one hell of a bunch of money!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Engineer
If someone buys stock and it goes 10 fold in value and that person dies and leaves it to someone else, does the receiver pay capital gains taxes on the gains when he/she sells or stock? (out of curiosity)

yes.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: palehorse74

IMO, taxing their lifelong incomes and gains, AGAIN, when they die, is essentially a fvcking crime. In terms of civil and human rights, I rank it up there with double-jeopardy.

It IS a crime...but jealousy and greed can often turn normal people into criminals..

I guess you think it's a crime to tax all forms of income that the wealthy rely on, like dividends, capital gains, and inheritances, and only the working stiffs should have to pay for the government in payroll, income, and sales taxes.

The word "inheritances" does not belong in that list - being that it is a direct result of the other listed earnings.

It's perfectly reasonable to tax income, gains, dividends, etc, throughout the lifetime of an earner. The problem I have is taxing them TWICE, on the same moneys, simply because the earner dies.

So if I pay you 100 dollars to paint my house should you have to pay taxes on it?

Remember I have already paid taxes on the 100 dollars.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Engineer
If someone buys stock and it goes 10 fold in value and that person dies and leaves it to someone else, does the receiver pay capital gains taxes on the gains when he/she sells or stock? (out of curiosity)

yes.

Does the receiver pay both the estate tax and the capital gains tax or only the estate tax (assuming enough value to pay the estate tax)?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
I have said why I am against inheritance taxes being lower than income taxes. Your pathetic attempt to put words in my mouth is not going to fly. You probably think you shouldn't pay any taxes, no?

Why the bullsh1t accusation? I pay roughly 28% in combined income taxes every year, and I'm quite willing to do the same for the rest of my life. I've never been against all taxes, but I sincerely believe that the estate tax system is an example of double-taxation.

The gains and income that lead to a persons lifelong wealth are taxed appropriately every step of the way, so please explain to me exactly what it is you think justifies taxing those exact same earnings again upon death.

The same thing that justifies the government taxing me for that money if you were to give it to me as a gift or pay me for my work. It's no longer the same person holding the money. Another person has received it as income.

It is my contention that if your reasoning is simply to prevent "undeserving" trustfund-babies, then you really have no legitimate argument for the double-taxation.

It is not double taxation, as I have explained. Every person who comes into possession of the money only pays taxes on it once.
It is my contention that you want to punish hard work and reward lazyness by shifting taxation from those who get money by not working, through inheritances, capital gains, and dividends to those who earn their money by working hard and paying income and payroll taxes. Why do you think someone getting money for doing nothing should pay less taxes than someone working their whole life to earn it?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: palehorse74

IMO, taxing their lifelong incomes and gains, AGAIN, when they die, is essentially a fvcking crime. In terms of civil and human rights, I rank it up there with double-jeopardy.

It IS a crime...but jealousy and greed can often turn normal people into criminals..

I guess you think it's a crime to tax all forms of income that the wealthy rely on, like dividends, capital gains, and inheritances, and only the working stiffs should have to pay for the government in payroll, income, and sales taxes.

The word "inheritances" does not belong in that list - being that it is a direct result of the other listed earnings.

It's perfectly reasonable to tax income, gains, dividends, etc, throughout the lifetime of an earner. The problem I have is taxing them TWICE, on the same moneys, simply because the earner dies.

Capital gains and dividends are also a result of earnings.
Inheritances belong perfectly on that list. They are not taxed twice. Show me where the person receiving an inheritance has to pay taxes on it twice. Every time money is inherited, the taxes are paid once. Family line or clan is not a legal entity, individuals are. And they have to pay taxes on money they come into possession of, once.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Engineer
If someone buys stock and it goes 10 fold in value and that person dies and leaves it to someone else, does the receiver pay capital gains taxes on the gains when he/she sells or stock? (out of curiosity)

yes.

Does the receiver pay both the estate tax and the capital gains tax or only the estate tax (assuming enough value to pay the estate tax)?

As it stands now, as far as I understand it, the receiver would have to pay both - depending upon the value of the stocks themselves combined with other assets passed along in the inheritance (property, bonds, cash, etc). If they total more than X amount, then the receiver must pay both the inheritance taxes AND any subsequent gains taxes.

It is my contention that they should only be responsible for subsequent gains taxes.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp
It is my contention that you want to punish hard work and reward lazyness by shifting taxation from those who get money by not working, through inheritances, capital gains, and dividends to those who earn their money by working hard and paying income and payroll taxes.

at what point did I mention the elimination of taxes on gains or dividends? I quite clearly stated that each of those is a legitimate form of taxation.

Why do you think someone getting money for doing nothing should pay less taxes than someone working their whole life to earn it?

The original earner already paid the proper taxes throughout their lifetime. That money has become their own. It now properly belongs to them and their family, however they wish to divide it up.

Along those lines, I also oppose "gift taxes" when they're applied to exchanges between relatives - the same concepts of double-taxation apply.

Perhaps our differences lie in the concept of "families" or "households." Income is generally lumped together in each family household, and taxes are paid on those moneys, once they are combined, one time. (ie. spouses and kids over 18 don't pay separate taxes on the "household" income of other family members. Even when the parents file separately, the spouses don't pay taxes on the income of the other, yet they both have equal access to the combined moneys left over).

That said, why should the children then pay inheritance taxes on the same money simply because the parents passed away?

I do not see it as the money actually changing hands because I view the family as a single entity.

Example:
Family of four: Mother, father, son, daughter. Father is the only one who works. During his lifetime, he grosses $10M. From that amount, he paid $3M in income or gains taxes, leaving $7M for the family to spend and have access to. At this point, the son, daughter, and mother all have equal access to the $7M, and can spend it however they wish, without paying any additional taxes on said money. (Simply adding the names of your children to a bank account is sufficient for allowing them full access to the money).

If the mother and father die in a car accident, what justifies lowering the amount the remaining family members have access to by another $3M?

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
I'm all for people leaving money behind for their children or loved ones to help them in life, but there is no reason that anyone should get a free ride for life because of the work of someone else. That is exactly what Warren Buffett is arguing and he is absolutely right.

I really wish you weren't being serious when you typed that, but I think you are. That is sad. You think its ok to tell someone that they can't leave however much money they want to their children and grandchildren. That is fucking ridiculous.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
It is my contention that you want to punish hard work and reward lazyness by shifting taxation from those who get money by not working, through inheritances, capital gains, and dividends to those who earn their money by working hard and paying income and payroll taxes.

at what point did I mention the elimination of taxes on gains or dividends? I quite clearly stated that each of those is a legitimate form of taxation.

Why do you think someone getting money for doing nothing should pay less taxes than someone working their whole life to earn it?

The original earner already paid the proper taxes throughout their lifetime. That money has become their own. It now properly belongs to them and their family, however they wish to divide it up.

A family as in him and his wife yes. A family as in all future generations of their family, no.
Those are separate legal entities that have to pay their own taxes on their income, including that which they get from their parents. If father decides to hire his son to work for him, should the son not pay any income taxes too, because it's all in the family?

Along those lines, I also oppose "gift taxes" when they're applied to exchanges between relatives - the same concepts of double-taxation apply.

Perhaps our differences lie in the concept of "families" or "households." Income is generally lumped together in each family household, and taxes are paid on those moneys, once they are combined, one time.

That said, why should the children then pay inheritance taxes on the same money?

Same reason their parents don't get to claim them as dependents.
Because they are not the same household as their parents, once they are adults.
They are responsible for paying taxes on money that comes into their household.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Same reason their parents don't get to claim them as dependents.
Because they are not the same household as their parents, once they are adults.
They are responsible for paying taxes on money that comes into their household.

I would interpret that to mean that you would have no problem with children under 18 being exempt from inheritance taxes...!? If the parents die when the kids are under 18, they get all the money, but if they are 18 or older, the government gets a 30% cut?

That makes no sense. In fact, age is not a factor in dependency.

Is there an age limit on claiming my children as dependents?

Age is a factor in the qualifying child test, but not the qualifying relative test. . As long as the following dependency exemption tests are met, you may claim him or her:

1. Qualifying child or qualifying relative test;
2. Dependent taxpayer test;
3. Citizenship or resident test; and
4. Joint return test.

Publication 501

Note: the above refers to dependency qualification, NOT other qualifications required for other child-related deductions and exemptions.

Also note: if you trust your kids enough, you can allow them full access to ALL of your money while you're still alive - adding their names to accounts, CC's, portfolios, loans, etc - which essentially negates the "changing hands" theory sensecamp has presented. In fact, if you do so with every asset, as fellow primary holders, they don't even need to "inherit" anything... they simply "keep" it. HA!

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down

Those who support estate taxes cant honestly say you think the government can put money to better use than you could. At least if you had it, you could give to the charities and do the things YOU want.

No one likes paying taxes and everyone has a better use for their money. Please explain why the money you get for doing nothing should not be taxed but the money I earn should be.

The money he is getting has ALREADY been taxed over the lifetime of the original earner - or do you conveniently wipe the money clean once it changes hands?

Example: you earn $100,000 and pay $30,000 in income taxes - putting $70,000 in the bank.

On New Years eve, you and your wife die.

You think it's OK for the government to come in and take $30,000 more of that money before your kids get it - thus taking a grand total of 60% of your earnings? No?

Then why the fvck is that OK when a few more zeros are involved?!?

Note: if you answered "yes" to that question, then you're f'n nuts. period.

Hey I guess if you have no valid argument about the estate tax lets make up a new tax and say how bad it could be.

My example was a perfect analogy to the estate tax, short a few zeros. What about it makes you think otherwise?

Right and a bike is a perfect analogy to a motor cycle short a few zeros in horse power.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
Same reason their parents don't get to claim them as dependents.
Because they are not the same household as their parents, once they are adults.
They are responsible for paying taxes on money that comes into their household.

I would interpret that to mean that you would have no problem with children under 18 being exempt from inheritance taxes...!? If the parents die when the kids are under 18, they get all the money, but if they are 18 or older, the government gets a 30% cut?

That makes no sense. In fact, age is not a factor in dependency.

Is there an age limit on claiming my children as dependents?

Age is a factor in the qualifying child test, but not the qualifying relative test. . As long as the following dependency exemption tests are met, you may claim him or her:

1. Qualifying child or qualifying relative test;
2. Dependent taxpayer test;
3. Citizenship or resident test; and
4. Joint return test.

Publication 501

Note: the above refers to dependency qualification, NOT other qualifications required for other child-related deductions and exemptions.

Also note: if you trust your kids enough, you can allow them full access to ALL of your money while you're still alive - adding their names to accounts, CC's, portfolios, loans, etc - which essentially negates the "changing hands" theory sensecamp has presented. In fact, if you do so with every asset, as fellow primary holders, they don't even need to "inherit" anything... they simply "keep" it. HA!

Yeah, let's quote IRS publications out of context instead of responding to actual points.
You can get anyone to cosign for a loan, it's a private transaction between private individual and bank, the bank can decide who it accepts as a cosigner. It has nothing to do with estate taxes.

Also, you seem to be implying that you can claim your children as dependents regardless of age? Only if they are permanently disabled. So yeah, if you want to get your daddy's money tax free, break your neck and move in with him. Otherwise you should pay taxes on your income like any self sufficient adult does.

From your document:

Tests To Be a Qualifying Child Tests To Be a Qualifying Relative

1.

The child must be your son, daughter, stepchild, eligible foster child, brother, sister, half brother, half sister, stepbrother, stepsister, or a descendant of any of them.
2.

The child must be (a) under age 19 at the end of the year, (b) under age 24 at the end of the year and a full-time student, or (c) any age if permanently and totally disabled.
3.

The child must have lived with you for more than half of the year. 2
4.

The child must not have provided more than half of his or her own support for the year.
5.

If the child meets the rules to be a qualifying child of more than one person, you must be the person entitled to claim the child as a qualifying child.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down

Those who support estate taxes cant honestly say you think the government can put money to better use than you could. At least if you had it, you could give to the charities and do the things YOU want.

No one likes paying taxes and everyone has a better use for their money. Please explain why the money you get for doing nothing should not be taxed but the money I earn should be.

The money he is getting has ALREADY been taxed over the lifetime of the original earner - or do you conveniently wipe the money clean once it changes hands?

Example: you earn $100,000 and pay $30,000 in income taxes - putting $70,000 in the bank.

On New Years eve, you and your wife die.

You think it's OK for the government to come in and take $30,000 more of that money before your kids get it - thus taking a grand total of 60% of your earnings? No?

Then why the fvck is that OK when a few more zeros are involved?!?

Note: if you answered "yes" to that question, then you're f'n nuts. period.

Hey I guess if you have no valid argument about the estate tax lets make up a new tax and say how bad it could be.

My example was a perfect analogy to the estate tax, short a few zeros. What about it makes you think otherwise?

Right and a bike is a perfect analogy to a motor cycle short a few zeros in horse power.

derrrRRrrr

 

[ChunkiMunki]

comical people are arguing and crying about having to pay taxes on their 2 million dollar inheritence. I wish i had that kind of problem. no trust fund for me.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
I'm all for people leaving money behind for their children or loved ones to help them in life, but there is no reason that anyone should get a free ride for life because of the work of someone else. That is exactly what Warren Buffett is arguing and he is absolutely right.

I really wish you weren't being serious when you typed that, but I think you are. That is sad. You think its ok to tell someone that they can't leave however much money they want to their children and grandchildren. That is fucking ridiculous.

you can leave however much you want to your children and granchildren, just be prepared to pay the tax man. that's not to ridiculous to fathom. if you don't want the money just refuse it. what's that? you want the money but don't want to pay the tax?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yeah, let's quote IRS publications out of context instead of responding to actual points.
You can get anyone to cosign for a loan, it's a private transaction between private individual and bank, the bank can decide who it accepts as a cosigner. It has nothing to do with estate taxes.

You're the one who brought up dependency, not I. And you were wrong about dependency qualification.

Also, you seem to be implying that you can claim your children as dependents regardless of age? Only if they are permanently disabled.

100% wrong. The four tests I quoted were all that is required for claiming dependents above age 18, with no cap on age.

From your document:

Tests To Be a Qualifying Child Tests To Be a Qualifying Relative
1.
The child must be your son, daughter, stepchild, eligible foster child, brother, sister, half brother, half sister, stepbrother, stepsister, or a descendant of any of them.
2.

The child must be (a) under age 19 at the end of the year, (b) under age 24 at the end of the year and a full-time student, or (c) any age if permanently and totally disabled.
3.

The child must have lived with you for more than half of the year. 2
4.

The child must not have provided more than half of his or her own support for the year.
5.

If the child meets the rules to be a qualifying child of more than one person, you must be the person entitled to claim the child as a qualifying child.

[/quote]
once again, Child != dependent.

"Child" qualification is only used for "child"-related deductions and exemptions, such as childrens' college tuition, etc.

You never answered my challenge:

Family of four: Mother, father, son, daughter. Father is the only one who works. During his lifetime, he grosses $10M. From that amount, he paid $3M in income or gains taxes, leaving $7M for the family to spend and have access to. At this point, the son, daughter, and mother all have equal access to the $7M, and can spend it however they wish, without paying any additional taxes on said money. (Simply adding the names of your children to a bank account is sufficient for allowing them full access to the money).

If the mother and father die in a car accident, what justifies lowering the amount the remaining family members have access to by another $3M?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
comical people are arguing and crying about having to pay taxes on their 2 million dollar inheritence. I wish i had that kind of problem. no trust fund for me.

I will not ever be effected by the estate tax either, and do not stand to inherit much money - but that doesnt mean that I can't object to it being wrongfully applied to others.

You do know that it's OK to object to the wronging of other people, right? It doesn't always have to effect YOU to make it worth fighting against!

You people really need to lose the "me, me, me" attitude... I would have more understanding of these egregious taxes if they applied equally across the board, regardless of how many zeros are involved. Instead, we have the HaveNots once again going after the Haves for no justifiable reason beyond jealousy and "sticking it to 'em"!

Then again, if I'm lucky and smart, this might apply to my children. Therefore, if I work hard and earn a lot of money before I die, paying the proper taxes along the way, I see no reason why the government should get an EXTRA cut when I die and my children assume 100% control over the same assets.

I fully expect them to pay the proper gains taxes on any interest accrued once they have the money; but otherwise, for all intents and purposes, 100% of the money is already theirs!

Then again, once they're old enough, and trustworthy, I might just add them to ALL of the accounts as primary holders, thus making the estate tax obsolete anyway. That way, if I die, they dont "inherit" anything.. they'll just pick up where I leave off in paying the gains taxes... etc etc...

bah, forget it.. you guys wont ever understand how criminal and stupid the estate tax is.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Face it, the only reason any of you are against full inheritances is because this doesnt effect YOU! It's a Jealousy Tax, plain and simple...

IMO, taxing their lifelong incomes and gains, AGAIN, when they die, is essentially a fvcking crime. In terms of civil and human rights, I rank it up there with double-jeopardy.

Why don't you face the fact that you don't understand the views of the proponents of the estate tax at all, that you are projecting when you talk about jealousy because you can't think of the idea of the public good as they can so you are left floundering without an explanation and you simply invent one for them, that jealousy can play ZERO in the issue for the proponents, and that you show yourself yet again to be a bizarre, extremist ideologue when you equate the taxation of a multi-million dollar estate with repeated criminal prosecution.

Taking that latter point, they have in common successive actions by the government, and that's about it - they have nothing in common in terms of injustice, in terms of merits, in terms of impact to the people - your statement proves the utter lack of any rationality in the position you claim so loudly and repeatedly. It demonstrates clearly you are unfit for any policy commentary in this area.

And I'll ask my question again - for a given million in taxes that are needed, does it cause less pain to tax it from the poor, the middle class, the wealthy, or from a large estate?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Why don't you face the fact that you don't understand the views of the proponents of the estate tax at all, that you are projecting when you talk about jealousy because you can't think of the idea of the public good...

That's where I stopped reading...

 

[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.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I have a crazy idea. Let's reduce spending.

Separate issue. Stick to the topic. Go reduce spending somewhere else, and since you will stilll have some spending, you will still have the question who to tax.

It's only a separate issue to a simpleton like yourself. People would have far less of an issue swallowing a tax be it an inheritance tax, income tax, sales tax if it was only a few percent. The reason we fight over taxes is because when you add them all up, the average American pay 40% or more of their income in taxes. No wonder we fight about who to tax. If government spending wasn't out of control, people wouldn't argue about where government got it's nickles and dimes. It's because government doesn't take nickles and dimes but tens and twenties that we constantly shift the tax burden depending on who's in power.

But as I've said before, simple answers for simple minds. That's why you like the inheritance tax, it's simple and appeals to your hatred of the wealthy.

Actually current leadership has indeed made it a separate issue. When it comes to spending money on bombs and boondoggles, Republicans are all to eager to vote (except for the occasionally principled ones like Coburn). Democrats just have different priorities for spending, but at least they 'usually' favor raising taxes as well. Together they've put the country in such a financial bind with entitlements (Medicare primarily), tax cuts (Republicans), and defense-industrial complex of perpetual >4% GDP that you HAVE to consider tax increases just to address CURRENT deficit levels. God-forbid we even consider AMT reform or what happens when the SS demographic gets really ugly in 8 years.

 

[theeedude]

Republicans want to cut estate capital gain and dividend taxes. A sure fire way to make sure the wealthy can live off the interest in perpetuity without ever paying a penny of taxes while the working people pick up the slack.