Estate Taxes (Steinbrenner)

[mrjminer]

You seem to lack understanding of the fluidity of money in our society. When my job pays me, I pay taxes on that money. When I spend it I pay taxes on that same money. When a business receives my money they pay tax on that money. When a business pays that money to an employee they pay taxes on it. It isn't double dipping, whenever a new entity comes into the money they pay taxes.

Unless you are trying to argue that the first time any individual dollar bill goes into the money supply it should be taxed, and never again after that?

1. Gambling winnings: If you happen to win over xxx amount, you are forced to pay taxes on your winnings. The money that you have "won" had already previously been taxed (from the income taxes from whatever poor bastard lost it), so this money is getting taxed again. There might also be some kind of "sin" tax for running a gambling business that the business owners would have to pay, but I'm not sure about that.
2. Stock earnings: If you happen to make money off of the stock, you are forced to pay taxes on the amount of money you have gained. The money you have gained has already been taxed (from whatever taxes the business had to pay to the government).
3. Monetary gifts: You give someone money over xxx that had already been taxed. They are then taxed on that money as if it were income.
4. Estate tax: The money from someone's estate is comprised entirely of funds / possessions bought with funds that have already been taxed. When the person dies, the estate is taxed.

The only taxes that should be in effect are: income tax (from money you make from an employer ONLY) and sales tax -- and for businesses the equivalents of these two). Everything else is double dipping by the government. You can call it "fluidity of money" or whatever you like. The simple fact of the matter is the funds are taxed more than once. These aren't "new entities" coming into play, these are the same entities being taxed again; money that has been previously taxed should not be taxed again merely for changing hands.

Another example is the lottery... people buy tickets with money that has already been taxed, then they end up giving over half of the jackpot comprised entirely of taxed money back in the form of taxes. The system is bullshit; the government needs to run itself more efficiently and stop taxing the same money.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

It's always entertaining to watch lefties attempt to justify their selfish desires to steal other peoples' money to fund their own inadequacies.

Yep, everything belongs to the gov't in their mind it seems. The gov't ALLOWS us to keep some of our money instead of giving it all to them... aren't they great!

 

[ModerateRepZero]

if there was no estate tax, then it accelerates the development of a (perpetual) aristocracy. fewer people would work because they have no need to labor in order to generate income to pay for necessities as well as luxuries.

a society's social & political life, as well as its economy, relies on an active and involved citizenry. apathetic and unmotivated, uninvolved citizens is not how a democracy or capitalistic system survives.

as other people have also pointed out, the estate tax only affects a small percentage of estates. your grandma with an estate of $1 million will NOT be taxed.

 

[manimal]

1. Gambling winnings: If you happen to win over xxx amount, you are forced to pay taxes on your winnings. The money that you have "won" had already previously been taxed (from the income taxes from whatever poor bastard lost it), so this money is getting taxed again. There might also be some kind of "sin" tax for running a gambling business that the business owners would have to pay, but I'm not sure about that.
2. Stock earnings: If you happen to make money off of the stock, you are forced to pay taxes on the amount of money you have gained. The money you have gained has already been taxed (from whatever taxes the business had to pay to the government).
3. Monetary gifts: You give someone money over xxx that had already been taxed. They are then taxed on that money as if it were income.
4. Estate tax: The money from someone's estate is comprised entirely of funds / possessions bought with funds that have already been taxed. When the person dies, the estate is taxed.

The only taxes that should be in effect are: income tax (from money you make from an employer ONLY) and sales tax -- and for businesses the equivalents of these two). Everything else is double dipping by the government. You can call it "fluidity of money" or whatever you like. The simple fact of the matter is the funds are taxed more than once. These aren't "new entities" coming into play, these are the same entities being taxed again; money that has been previously taxed should not be taxed again merely for changing hands.

Another example is the lottery... people buy tickets with money that has already been taxed, then they end up giving over half of the jackpot comprised entirely of taxed money back in the form of taxes. The system is bullshit; the government needs to run itself more efficiently and stop taxing the same money.

Very Sensible. What percent of the total tax generated by the country does everything outside of income and sales taxes?

The problem I have with the estate tax is twofold, as some have said it taxes something that you already payed taxes on-sometimes twice or more- secondly if someone has multiple kids, and are say in the 4-8 million dollar bracket when they die.Those 5 kids would see a drastic reduction of what they would receive. If ones been very generous their entire live, worked hard, and didnt spend unwisely do they need to be punished and their kids punished?

 

[Patranus]

as other people have also pointed out, the estate tax only affects a small percentage of estates. your grandma with an estate of $1 million will NOT be taxed.

Nope that was in 2009.

In 2011, one million will be taxed at 55%.

That is easy to hit in California due to property values being so high.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gawd. Righties can't even recognize their own hypocrisy when it comes to estate taxes. When the subject is ordinary Americans, why, it's all about personal responsibility, about how the govt shouldn't be giving handouts, so forth and so on. When it comes to handouts from mommie and daddy, to the tune of hundreds of millions or even billions, why that's *different*... Why? because it's just *different*

And they love to talk about how estate taxes *punish the dead*, as if that makes any sort of sense at all. They're *dead*, mow-rons, beyond earthly cares, untouchable to the living. And talk about how heirs are also *punished*, when they're getting free money, apparently because they're not getting *all* of the deceased's money, for free, of course. It's not like they worked for it, earned it, other than in the sense that putting up with some old rich bastards is work...

I figure we'll see a spate of rich aunt millie's falling down the stairs before the end of the year and similar occurrences, spoiled richkids being who they are, but I doubt we'll see the ultimate act of tax defiance, richies offing themselves so that the kids don't have to pay estate taxes... I mean, if it's that important, just blow your brains out in front of a bunch of witnesses 1 minute before midnight, new year's eve... 2010 is your big chance, so go for it...

Just stop whining, OK?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Gawd. Righties can't even recognize their own hypocrisy when it comes to estate taxes. When the subject is ordinary Americans, why, it's all about personal responsibility, about how the govt shouldn't be giving handouts, so forth and so on. When it comes to handouts from mommie and daddy, to the tune of hundreds of millions or even billions, why that's *different*... Why? because it's just *different*

And they love to talk about how estate taxes *punish the dead*, as if that makes any sort of sense at all. They're *dead*, mow-rons, beyond earthly cares, untouchable to the living. And talk about how heirs are also *punished*, when they're getting free money, apparently because they're not getting *all* of the deceased's money, for free, of course. It's not like they worked for it, earned it, other than in the sense that putting up with some old rich bastards is work...

I figure we'll see a spate of rich aunt millie's falling down the stairs before the end of the year and similar occurrences, spoiled richkids being who they are, but I doubt we'll see the ultimate act of tax defiance, richies offing themselves so that the kids don't have to pay estate taxes... I mean, if it's that important, just blow your brains out in front of a bunch of witnesses 1 minute before midnight, new year's eve... 2010 is your big chance, so go for it...

Just stop whining, OK?

In the case of Steinbrenner's children.. yes, they HAVE earned part of it. They have been running the team since 2007 and I am sure have worked in the organization for MANY years before that. But liberal assholes like you just assume they haven't done shit for it because people like Paris Hilton are out there. Get over your JEALOUSLY and think rationally about what you are saying.

What sort of sick perverted mind do you have that makes you believe that the government is entitled to take personal property from a family or estate thats been legally earned? Where is the constitution does it say the Federal government is entitled to your money after you die because your kids didn't earn it? Where is the constitution does it say there is some sort of arbitrary $ amount you can leave to your children before it becomes 'excessive'. Where in the Constitution does it say that parents should not be allowed to set their children up for life regardless if they have 'earned' it or not?

I can only hope one day the government steals a bunch of something you have worked hard for your whole life so you can feel what its like. I suspect that will never happen though since you'll probably never contribute much to society other than blaming others for why you can't succeed.

 

[sandorski]

In the case of Steinbrenner's children.. yes, they HAVE earned part of it. They have been running the team since 2007 and I am sure have worked in the organization for MANY years before that. But liberal assholes like you just assume they haven't done shit for it because people like Paris Hilton are out there. Get over your JEALOUSLY and think rationally about what you are saying.

What sort of sick perverted mind do you have that makes you believe that the government is entitled to take personal property from a family or estate thats been legally earned? Where is the constitution does it say the Federal government is entitled to your money after you die because your kids didn't earn it? Where is the constitution does it say there is some sort of arbitrary $ amount you can leave to your children before it becomes 'excessive'. Where in the Constitution does it say that parents should not be allowed to set their children up for life regardless if they have 'earned' it or not?

I can only hope one day the government steals a bunch of something you have worked hard for your whole life so you can feel what its like. I suspect that will never happen though since you'll probably never contribute much to society other than blaming others for why you can't succeed.

Protip: Tax or no Tax, these children are set for life on this Inheritance. So what was the problem again?

 

[CallMeJoe]

...Where is the constitution does it say the Federal government is entitled to your money after you die because your kids didn't earn it? Where is the constitution does it say there is some sort of arbitrary $ amount you can leave to your children before it becomes 'excessive'. Where in the Constitution does it say that parents should not be allowed to set their children up for life regardless if they have 'earned' it or not?

Where in the Constitution does it guarantee a Right of Inheritance?

 

[sandorski]

Where in the Constitution does it guarantee a Right of Inheritance?

Hell, where does it say FNE has a Right to Post on the Internet?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Where in the Constitution does it guarantee a Right of Inheritance?

Well the 10th Amendment certainly would apply here in MY mind. Of course, the progressives have completely wiped their ass with that part of the Constitution.

But lets go down this road. How about that mythical right to privacy that exists? Certainly its not any of the governments business what you do with your private property in your family. If we can find the right to an abortion in that one, certainly inheritance can fall under that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Protip: Tax or no Tax, these children are set for life on this Inheritance. So what was the problem again?

Please- don't confuse the ravers with facts- it just drives them deeper into denial, like the fact that the constitutionality of estate taxes has been confirmed many times... Dead people have no rights- it's just that simple. Actually, it's a no-brainer.

Estates have only the rights conferred upon them by law because they're not *living persons* whose rights are enumerated in the constitution and its amendments.

And, uhh, your personal attack is touching, Fear No Evil, truly touching... seems like you're really afraid of losing something, somehow, for you to get quite so goofy and full of yourself... and to leap to conclusions that might seem comforting to your irrationality...

 

[CallMeJoe]

The most germane Constitutional reference would seem to be the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Properly enacted tax legislation should satisfy "due process".

 

[HendrixFan]

Well the 10th Amendment certainly would apply here in MY mind. Of course, the progressives have completely wiped their ass with that part of the Constitution.

But lets go down this road. How about that mythical right to privacy that exists? Certainly its not any of the governments business what you do with your private property in your family. If we can find the right to an abortion in that one, certainly inheritance can fall under that.

A corporation is not "private" as it needs a corporate charter.

Getting into the constitutionality of the whole estate tax thing, please refer back to my earlier post with a direct quote from one of our most prominent founding fathers to see how they looked upon the passing of estates.

 

[Binarycow]

Can someone explain to me the logic behind why our government gets to come in and take a 55% portion out of someone's life long hard work? and don't give me the bull crap about his kids are still stupid rich even after that huge tax bill. I just want to know the logic behind the 55% tax. Seriously.

 

[sandorski]

Can someone explain to me the logic behind why our government gets to come in and take a 55% portion out of someone's life long hard work? and don't give me the bull crap about his kids are still stupid rich even after that huge tax bill. I just want to know the logic behind the 55% tax. Seriously.

It's a Tax. Srsly.

 

[HendrixFan]

Can someone explain to me the logic behind why our government gets to come in and take a 55% portion out of someone's life long hard work? and don't give me the bull crap about his kids are still stupid rich even after that huge tax bill. I just want to know the logic behind the 55% tax. Seriously.

From earlier in the thread:

"For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy.

...

Nor do I believe them necessary to protect the wealthy; because enough of these will find their way into every branch of the legislation to protect themselves. From 15 to 20 legislatures of our own, in action for 30 years past, have proved that no fears of an equalisation of property are to be apprehended from them.

I think the best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, to leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi, of the wheat from the chaff. In general they will elect the real good and wise. In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them; but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society. "

 

[CADsortaGUY]

From earlier in the thread:

So it's about social engineering?

 

[Jhhnn]

Well the 10th Amendment certainly would apply here in MY mind. Of course, the progressives have completely wiped their ass with that part of the Constitution.

But lets go down this road. How about that mythical right to privacy that exists? Certainly its not any of the governments business what you do with your private property in your family. If we can find the right to an abortion in that one, certainly inheritance can fall under that.

Heh. Estates must pass through probate in state courts, largely to protect the creditors of the deceased, to protect the heirs against shenanigans by the executor and also to protect heirs from each other. No privacy in that.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

I guess hard work, pulling up oneself by your bootstraps, and personal responsibility doesn't apply to offspring of millionaires. Everyone knows when money changes hands for goods or services a tax will be paid, the wealthy know this more than anyone. Don't want to pay? Reject the inheritance and make your own way, or accept the debt get back to work.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I guess hard work, pulling up oneself by your bootstraps, and personal responsibility doesn't apply to offspring of millionaires. Everyone knows when money changes hands for goods or services a tax will be paid, the wealthy know this more than anyone. Don't want to pay? Reject the inheritance and make your own way, or accept the debt get back to work.

That would be fine if we actually held EVERYONE to that standard and not just rich people. The left continues social program after social program which requires exactly the opposite. It requires people to not do a damn thing. Basically this tax is just a wealth transfer from the rich to the poor from Democrats to keep the poor voting for them en mass with NO requirements for the free money what so ever.

Nevermind a 55% tax is essentially FORCING the sale of family owned business unless the other family members can come up with the cash to save it. Seems pretty excessive to me. The Government doesn't have a right to everything we own.

As I have said to others in this thread I hope at some point you have 55% of your belongings stolen from you from someone who believes you haven't earned them.

 

[HendrixFan]

So it's about social engineering?

Yes, our country was founded on the idea that what you are was more important that who you were. The idea that freedom was the opposite of tyranny and tyranny rose from aristocracy.

The country was built with safeguards to protect society from its evil elements. That is why there was nothing to limit speech or religious choice, or further down the path, to try and prevent an aristocracy. I guess you can call it social engineering, but that is pretty much was the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence are.

 

[HendrixFan]

Nevermind a 55% tax is essentially FORCING the sale of family owned business unless the other family members can come up with the cash to save it. Seems pretty excessive to me. The Government doesn't have a right to everything we own.

As I have said to others in this thread I hope at some point you have 55% of your belongings stolen from you from someone who believes you haven't earned them.

Two points:

First, any estate tax can be put on a payment plan. If you inherit something with a value, that value is derived from the money that can be earned with it. If you can't earn money at the rate of its value, then you seek a new appraisal. The new cash inflow can be used to make the payments on the payment plan. Bear in mind that there is a bar that must be met before estate taxes kick in, I have seen it as low as $1M and as high as $4M recently. After an estate reaches a value in excess of someone's lifetime earnings, I think a tax is reasonable. Only the value above a certain point is taxed, so the estate has to be so large that it exceeds what they would likely earn in a lifetime of work! Last I read a Bachelor's degree was worth about $2M in lifetime earnings and a Phd was worth about $3.5M in lifetime earnings. Can you see why an estate tax helps fight off an aristocracy?

Second, nobody is having any of their belongings stolen. The person who had the belongings is dead. The beneficiary is receiving someone else's belongings and in no way "earned" them as you imply.

One of my co-workers has a boyfriend who received a nice inheritance. He helped take care of a neighbor when he was old and sick, while the guy's kids ignored him. When he died he left his house here in town, his vacation home in Colorado, and a nice boat for the lakes we have here in Austin. The guy's kids were upset, but who cares about those loathsome creatures that wouldn't help their own father in a time of need and only wanted his belongings? Anyway, the boyfriend received two houses and a boat and since the value was nowhere near the start of the estate tax, he didn't have to pay a dime. He rents out the vacation home, he has roommates to pay rent here in town in his home. He doesn't work because the rent money is his income since both houses are paid off. He spends most his time out on the lake or just relaxing.

If he can manage to do all this with a paltry inheritance, how moronic can someone receiving an entity valued at over $1B not be able to "make it work"? If they can't, then the estate tax has served its purpose (according to our founding fathers) of putting that money in the hands of someone who can actually make it useful.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Two points:

First, any estate tax can be put on a payment plan. If you inherit something with a value, that value is derived from the money that can be earned with it. If you can't earn money at the rate of its value, then you seek a new appraisal. The new cash inflow can be used to make the payments on the payment plan. Bear in mind that there is a bar that must be met before estate taxes kick in, I have seen it as low as $1M and as high as $4M recently. After an estate reaches a value in excess of someone's lifetime earnings, I think a tax is reasonable. Only the value above a certain point is taxed, so the estate has to be so large that it exceeds what they would likely earn in a lifetime of work! Last I read a Bachelor's degree was worth about $2M in lifetime earnings and a Phd was worth about $3.5M in lifetime earnings. Can you see why an estate tax helps fight off an aristocracy?

Second, nobody is having any of their belongings stolen. The person who had the belongings is dead. The beneficiary is receiving someone else's belongings and in no way "earned" them as you imply.

One of my co-workers has a boyfriend who received a nice inheritance. He helped take care of a neighbor when he was old and sick, while the guy's kids ignored him. When he died he left his house here in town, his vacation home in Colorado, and a nice boat for the lakes we have here in Austin. The guy's kids were upset, but who cares about those loathsome creatures that wouldn't help their own father in a time of need and only wanted his belongings? Anyway, the boyfriend received two houses and a boat and since the value was nowhere near the start of the estate tax, he didn't have to pay a dime. He rents out the vacation home, he has roommates to pay rent here in town in his home. He doesn't work because the rent money is his income since both houses are paid off. He spends most his time out on the lake or just relaxing.

If he can manage to do all this with a paltry inheritance, how moronic can someone receiving an entity valued at over $1B not be able to "make it work"? If they can't, then the estate tax has served its purpose (according to our founding fathers) of putting that money in the hands of someone who can actually make it useful.

You seem to be arguing against your own example. You are suggesting that the dead person who gave your friend's boyfriend the money should not have had the right to make that determination. The government should have immediately taken 55% of it.. hell, 100% of it. THat person's dead, why should they get to decide what happens to their estate?

Hell, your example seems to be a GREAT example as to why we SHOULD NOT have the inheritance tax because often these 'worthless children' are the ones taking care of their parents in their final years.

Your last statement is pretty damning on where your opinion comes from. Government knows how to spend your money better than you do. Just allow government to take anything of yours and redistribute it as they see fit.

 

[Fear No Evil]

As further evidence that the estate tax has nothing to do with preventing an aristocracy.. we see nothing about suggesting term limits preventing such families with massive amounts of weath to serve forever in government. Such right-wing extremists as Ted Kennedy and the rest of the Kennedy family.. about the only thing that gets them out of office is when they get killed. And don't forget other right-wing rich people like Senator Byrd. If the goal is to prevent aristocracy's from forming wouldn't term limits be a priority?

Of course its not. Because the estate tax is nothing but a political and financial power grab by the Federal Government.