Who says they have to be making an income to be taxed? I think we can tax the transfer of wealth just fine income, inheritance or otherwise.
Who says they have to be making an income to be taxed? I think we can tax the transfer of wealth just fine income, inheritance or otherwise.
I'm not talking about taxing people yearly just because they have money. I'm saying that tax inheritance is no different then any other tax.
Umm no I'm not. My costumer earned money and paid income tax on it. I earned money by providing a services to said costumer and I pay income tax on that money. We both paid tax on the same money.
There no need to assume that the government has to take more money than it does now - instead of paying instalments over you life, you simply pay your taxes when when die.
Based on replies in this and the other thread, I'd say most people are scared of a meritocracy. They either want to get a head start themselves or ensure their children get it. They oppose wealth redistribution in general, but not amongst family, since they claim some kind of special made up 'relationship' between a sibling and their parent's wealth.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
Well if your family created the culture, don't try to take away from those who leveraged said culture to accumulate wealth.
Money isn't worthless, or it wouldn't be money.
News brief...the revolution failed...the great socialist experiment is over.
Oh boy, what thinkers we have today. You just have to say communism and the debate is over. Can I stick a badge on you that says moron and turn you into one? Were is the intellectual foundations of your case? I believe your ideas are based on nothing at all bur assumptions you have never thought about. It's not a good idea to have irrational belief, no?
You're the one saying we don't own anything that we "own." Like I said, that thought process borders on communism. You're the one believing in irrational beliefs.
Some of thee most amazing rightwing doublespeak ever created has to do with inheritance taxes. And that shouldn't come as a surprise- those affected by it have more than enough money to hire the best mouthpieces available.
The first thing we need to clear up is the notion that taxes have already been paid on inheritances by the grantor. That's not true. Stocks, bonds, art, antiques, and real estate purchased decades ago and never sold have appreciated tremendously, and no taxes have been paid on that appreciation, ever. If there were no inheritance tax, there would never be any tax on it...
As has been pointed out, estate taxes only affect .2% of all estates, and even that figure is deceptive. A $2M estate would pay nothing this year under current law, but a $2.1M estate would be "affected", with estate taxes having to be paid only on the amount over $2M... meaning that an even smaller % are "affected" in ways truly significant...
And I think it's important to realize that virtually all earned income is subject to income taxes. So if the grantor of the estate has employees, they pay taxes on their money... Which we don't see as "double taxation", at all... but when the grantor dies, the heirs are taxed on money they didn't even earn, which is somehow interpreted to be "double taxation".... which is malarkey...
One of the biggest problems with untaxed inter-generational accumulations of wealth is that it tends to concentrate wealth and power into the hands of a very, very few people, who have done nothing to earn it, at all, other than being members of the lucky sperm club... and many of the assertions and conceptualizations used to defend such are based on the infinite pie theory, which is an entirely false view of finite resources available to the human race.
Sam Walton, just for example, became exceedingly wealthy on the merits of his own endeavor, and I have no problem with that. His heirs are another story entirely, particularly those who will arrive several generations down the road. Which is not to say that they shouldn't be allowed to inherit, at all, to not be financially secure from cradle to grave, nor does current law demand that. But it's important to realize that huge accumulations of wealth are near static, actually contributing little to the economy thru turnover. And that's what's fundamentally wrong with many third world economies- all the wealth is held by a very, very few at the top, so much so that what we see as a middle class simply can't develop. Even as such economies can be said to "grow", the benefits of it go straight to the top, and stay there...
Many of America's wealthiest families are old money, and much of that money is held in Trusts, an artifact of the compromises of the New Deal. Their problem is that trusts can only benefit persons living at the time the trust was created, and they're running out of such heirs... That wealth has grown tax free for generations, but when the last of the eligible heirs pass on, that inheritance becomes taxable, something they're desperate to avoid... It's not like any of the affected heirs will be made destitute- they still stand to inherit vast sums...
But those at the top really hate paying any taxes, ever- to them, the govt is something they make money off of, not vice-versa, so they've engaged in a decades old campaign to sway public opinion and congress that almost worked- the recipients of their largesse were so desperate to get it through that they even tried to make it a condition of raising minimum wage. Pretty shameful, really, but not at all surprising...
The first thing we need to clear up is the notion that taxes have already been paid on inheritances by the grantor. That's not true. Stocks, bonds, art, antiques, and real estate purchased decades ago and never sold have appreciated tremendously, and no taxes have been paid on that appreciation, ever. If there were no inheritance tax, there would never be any tax on it...
As has been pointed out, estate taxes only affect .2% of all estates, and even that figure is deceptive. A $2M estate would pay nothing this year under current law, but a $2.1M estate would be "affected", with estate taxes having to be paid only on the amount over $2M... meaning that an even smaller % are "affected" in ways truly significant...
And I think it's important to realize that virtually all earned income is subject to income taxes. So if the grantor of the estate has employees, they pay taxes on their money... Which we don't see as "double taxation", at all... but when the grantor dies, the heirs are taxed on money they didn't even earn, which is somehow interpreted to be "double taxation".... which is malarkey...
One of the biggest problems with untaxed inter-generational accumulations of wealth is that it tends to concentrate wealth and power into the hands of a very, very few people, who have done nothing to earn it, at all, other than being members of the lucky sperm club... and many of the assertions and conceptualizations used to defend such are based on the infinite pie theory, which is an entirely false view of finite resources available to the human race.
Sam Walton, just for example, became exceedingly wealthy on the merits of his own endeavor, and I have no problem with that. His heirs are another story entirely, particularly those who will arrive several generations down the road. Which is not to say that they shouldn't be allowed to inherit, at all, to not be financially secure from cradle to grave, nor does current law demand that. But it's important to realize that huge accumulations of wealth are near static, actually contributing little to the economy thru turnover. And that's what's fundamentally wrong with many third world economies- all the wealth is held by a very, very few at the top, so much so that what we see as a middle class simply can't develop. Even as such economies can be said to "grow", the benefits of it go straight to the top, and stay there...
Many of America's wealthiest families are old money, and much of that money is held in Trusts, an artifact of the compromises of the New Deal. Their problem is that trusts can only benefit persons living at the time the trust was created, and they're running out of such heirs... That wealth has grown tax free for generations, but when the last of the eligible heirs pass on, that inheritance becomes taxable, something they're desperate to avoid... It's not like any of the affected heirs will be made destitute- they still stand to inherit vast sums...
But those at the top really hate paying any taxes, ever- to them, the govt is something they make money off of, not vice-versa, so they've engaged in a decades old campaign to sway public opinion and congress that almost worked- the recipients of their largesse were so desperate to get it through that they even tried to make it a condition of raising minimum wage. Pretty shameful, really, but not at all surprising...
Who have done nothing to earn it. Who have done nothing to earn it? Taking risks, making good decisions, saving, being successful...I guess that doesn't count as earning it. Just because you're a conformist who will never break out and earn money doesn't mean people who do didn't earn it.
That's a complete non-sequiter in relation to my post, ntdz- just more of the same anti-tax mantra, repeated ad nauseum...
Do you actually read other people's posts? Or have the slightest comprehension of the tax code?
Let's say, for example, that I bought Microsoft in the original stock offering, simply held it all these years. When I die, I will it to my children. Under your scenario, no taxes will be paid on the capital gains by anybody, ever- not by me, not by my inheritors...
Tell me again how the money has already been taxed...
Please try to think. I asked why his claim to property was more valid than mine. First you counter by calling me a communist, as if that meant anything, and now you call me irrational as if that now does. As I said, apparently your embedded belief in your own rectitude precludes you from seeing you need to make a case. You are just labeling me and calling me names, all logically meaningless operations.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
inheritance and gifts are part of the same tax regime and should always be taxed the same to prevent gaming the system. what is the difference between a testamentary gift made via will and a living gift made on the deathbed (or earlier)? if you try to make a distinction (as was the case in the past) people gamed the system to ensure the largest gift passes to the object of their bounty.
and jhnn does have a point about it not being taxed. appreciated assets receive a step-up in basis upon transfer, so that when they are (eventually) sold, no tax is ever paid on the portion that was stepped-up. you could simply get rid of that rule, rather than scraping the whole inheritance/gift tax system and rolling it into the standard income tax system.
and jhnn does have a point about it not being taxed. appreciated assets receive a step-up in basis upon transfer, so that when they are (eventually) sold, no tax is ever paid on the portion that was stepped-up. you could simply get rid of that rule, rather than scraping the whole inheritance/gift tax system and rolling it into the standard income tax system.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
It would be awfully simple to just put inheritance under income - if you inherit cash, you pay income tax on it. If you inherit a business, or investment, you pay the income tax when you sell it. That way no one has to sell an inherited business to pay the taxes.
I don't pay tax on investment earnings until I either sell the investment, or 'crystalize' (sell and buy at the same time, because it happens to be a 'good' year to do so).
There's no need for an actual 'inheritance' tax.
I don't pay tax on investment earnings until I either sell the investment, or 'crystalize' (sell and buy at the same time, because it happens to be a 'good' year to do so).
There's no need for an actual 'inheritance' tax.
Gifts and inheritances are almost NEVER taxed to the recipient. The giftor or decedent bears the burden of taxation, and even then only above the amount of tax covered by the Uniform Transfer Tax Credit.
Assuming we're talking about the US.
Assuming we're talking about the US.
First of all, I never called you names. I said your beliefs border on communism, which I haven't heard you deny yet, btw. Second of all, do you understand the concept of a will? They are legally recognized and allow people to give their possessions to other people when they die. So clearly, you don't have a right to property that isn't yours.
The inheiritance taxes things that were not taxes in your lifttime, such as capital gains that had not been realized
talk about a situation that doesn't exist :roll: There are *very* few farmers that would qualify for the estate tax. *very* few.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter