• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Estate Taxes (Steinbrenner)

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
LegendKiller said:
I do enjoy how you attempt to confuse two issues here.

1. Taxes themselves were not the issue for the Revolutionary War. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION was the issue. A despot thousands of miles away, declaring taxes, was the issue. The people couldn't decide.

2. To circle back to #1, apply logic. If there became a class of people so wealthy as to be able to subvert Congress absolutely, thereby eliminating representation for the remainder of the populace, you get back to #1. This, among other reasons, is why the vast majority of the Founding Fathers agreed with an inheritance tax. They did not want this country to devolve into aristocracy vs not, which is the eventual effect of inheritance as wealth aggregates.


http://www.tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/7082.html


I always love when people toss about how the "Founding Fathers" are "spinning in their graves" over some perceived notion of what the FF wanted, such as religion, governance, or taxes. Most Americans have only looked at high school history books with the FF and have rarely scratched underneath that thin veneer of history. Once you look under that, you realize that the crazy notions of many are just that, crazy, and the FF were actually very rational and logical men, far more enlightened than those posting here against the inheritance tax.
Click to expand...

This, you wings nuts really don't know anything about the founding father's intent except when you fantasize with your favorite sock./
 
Toastedlightly said:
Do you think it is moral for the government to tax the assets that has already been taxed (via income tax, sales tax, property tax, capital gains, etc)?
Click to expand...
Tax is tax. If I think taxes are moral then I think estate tax is moral. Keep in mind that the value of Steinbrenners Yankees has gone up 1000 percent since he bought it which wasn't taxed. It would have been taxed if he had sold it.

Also keep in mind that all of us are taxed on money the was previously taxed. Sales tax for example.
 
Last edited:
Red Dawn said:
Tax is tax. If I think taxes are moral then I think estate tax is moral. Keep in mind that the value of Steinbrenners Yankees has gone up 1000 percent since he bought it which wasn't taxed. It would have been taxed if he had sold it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The founding fathers would have lots to say about inherited wealth, tinsel aristocracy, etc.
 
Toastedlightly said:
Then you must have a comment on the morality of children inheriting their parent's wealth. You've taken a position. Claiming it is amoral means you don't have a position on the subject at hand.

Let your morals guide you!
Click to expand...

It is neither Moral or Immoral to charge an Estate Tax. It is Amoral(neither). That does not mean I have no position, it means that Morality has nothing to do with it.
 
GuitarDaddy said:
Don't present Spidey with facts, they just get in his way 🙂

And how do all the estate tax haters reconcile with the fact that the wealthiest and most conservative people in our country almost unanimously support strong estate taxes? Just to name a couple Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

I find if quite comical how all the ultra conservative he men, who hate social welfare and freebie government handouts and espose the virtues of hard work and earning what they have, are all for creating a society of silver spoon brats who never work a day in their life and live high off of inherited wealth. The truth is these ubber morals they claim to have are shit, and they would be more than happy to live fat dumb and happy of the hard work of others.
Click to expand...

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have created charitable trusts which shields there estates from the taxes. Just because their the super rich doesn't mean they will actually pay the estate tax. This is unlike the wealthy (or asset wealthy as farms can be) who cannot set up these kinds of trusts.

The simple fact is the estate doesnt belong to the government, it belongs to the owner and it is his decision on who should get it. If he believes the government should get it then he can will it.

"The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort." goes quite well for liberals who want to confiscate estates.
 
Red Dawn said:
Tax is tax. If I think taxes are moral then I think estate tax is moral. Keep in mind that the value of Steinbrenners Yankees has gone up 1000 percent since he bought it which wasn't taxed. It would have been taxed if he had sold it.

Also keep in mind that all of us are taxed on money the was previously taxed. Sales tax for example.
Click to expand...

And if his children choose to sell it then they will be taxed on that sale.

But they should not be taxed just by inheriting it.
 
RedChief said:
And if his children choose to sell it then they will be taxed on that sale.

But they should not be taxed just by inheriting it.
Click to expand...
Why not? Also do you actually believe that Old George didn't have it set up where they'd avoid paying a good chunk of that tax?

All I know if that I would gladly pay inheritance tax if I were to inherit a large fortune
 
PeshakJang said:
So the most successful should be the most punished?

-snip-
Click to expand...

(Not to pick on you) This ^ evidences a classic misunderstanding of the theory on taxation (estate and income).

The concept was that we would have low income tax rates and high estate rates. This was so that people could enjoy the fruits of their labor during their life, allow upward mobility for people, and stop the build up/concentration of wealth to prevent creating an aristocratic class . (Yes, Congress has largely screwed this up.)

So, as a conservative I have no problem whatsoever with an estate tax. In fact, I think the many loopholes for the rich ought to be removed so we can get back to the original theory above.

Also:
In Steinbrenner's case, his heirs are gonna pay income tax on the approximately $1 billion of (previously) untaxed gain on the franchise if/when they sell it. Had estate tax applied they would not. They would have gotten what is known as a "stepped-up basis". So, there is somewhat of a benefit.

For those who work a lifetime to build a business and want it to pass to their children, I have trouble seeing a problem.

If you're going to buy a business, you pay 100% of it's FMV. The FMV is typically based on the profit/cash flow the business produces. If you've built this business, your kids can certainly afford to pay the approx 50% (or less) for the estate taxes from the business's cash flow (taht still leaves a nice chunk available). They would also get that 'stepped-up basis' benefit I mentioned above. And if that business is laden with debt, that's reflected in the determination of FMV, so no one s/b complaining about that. I.e., 'financing' the estate tax bill shouldn't be hard.

However, there is a real problem for people who are 'cash -poor' but 'property rich'. We have that problem where I live. People inherit undeveloped non-productive real estate (e.g., 1,000 acres of mountain/forest type land that's been in the family for umpteen generations) that gets appraised at a high amount. Now you've got a problem. Since the land produces no cash they're forced to sell the family homestead. I do have a problem with that and believe something should be worked out.

Fern
 
I am not rich by any means but I disagree with the estate tax. The person that has died has continually paid taxes and "followed" tax rules for decades and then pass on something to their kids that gets taxed basically again, so it is double taxed.

I understand he paid $8.7 million and it is worth $1.5+ billion for the Yankees but he put 37 years of constant reinvesting into his team to get it to that value. ESPN said that Steinbrenner invested $1.8 billion on free agency over the last twenty years or so.
 
Red Dawn said:
Why not? Also do you actually believe that Old George didn't have it set up where they'd avoid paying a good chunk of that tax?

All I know if that I would gladly pay inheritance tax if I were to inherit a large fortune
Click to expand...

No you wouldn't. I can't believe I am saying this, but you would probably have some pretty decent kids with good heads on their shoulders who you would think would probably do better with the money than some government bureaucrat.. Of course, these kids would be nothing like you.. but thankfully they got your wife's qualities..
 
Adrenaline said:
I am not rich by any means but I disagree with the estate tax. The person that has died has continually paid taxes and "followed" tax rules for decades and then pass on something to their kids that gets taxed basically again, so it is double taxed.

I understand he paid $8.7 million and it is worth $1.5+ billion for the Yankees but he put 37 years of constant reinvesting into his team to get it to that value. ESPN said that Steinbrenner invested $1.8 billion on free agency over the last twenty years or so.
Click to expand...

Nope.

The point (which has sailed over your head) is that the increase (gain) in the value of stocks, real estate, ball teams, etc., has never been taxed.

And by-the-way, player salaries (which cover your ""$1.8 billion on free agency"") and contracts are treated as depreciable assets ---- that means the Yankees got $1.8 billion in tax deductions for the services of those free agents ...





--
 
senseamp said:
He's dead.

His kids are going to get millions tax free for doing nothing except coming out of the right vagina, while average chump gets taxed full tilt on his income working his way up.

Only Republicans would advocate taxing income for doing nothing at less than you tax hard work.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Patranus said:
Why do you keep saying it is all about the money?

Do you not think that the owner of a family business would want to pass that business on to their children?

Oh well, fire all of the employees, sell off the assets, and pay the tax man. So much for all of the hard work and pride in the family business.

Right?
Click to expand...

So why wouldn't they give some ownership of the business to their children before their death?
 
Red Dawn said:
Tax is tax. If I think taxes are moral then I think estate tax is moral. Keep in mind that the value of Steinbrenners Yankees has gone up 1000 percent since he bought it which wasn't taxed. It would have been taxed if he had sold it.

Also keep in mind that all of us are taxed on money the was previously taxed. Sales tax for example.
Click to expand...

Just because it is so does not make it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top