• 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.

House votes to end federal estate taxes

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Zebo
Jhhnn, you know it's only giving a single mother $10,000 a year in welfare that stifles her incentive to work. Paris Hilton who stands gets windfall of 10,000 times that much is a go getter.:roll:

:roll: What concern is it of yours how much she receives from her parents' efforts?

Gotta get taxes from someplace. If given the choice I'd prefer to get it from people who did'nt earn it rather than those that did.

So you'd advocate taxing welfare? (I must add that the money WAS earned, it didn't materialize out of nowhere)

Sure but I don't believe in welfare, like estates.. Make them earn it.

By defination it isn't welfare. Welfare is defined by giving from the state.

What happens whent the estate that is being passed on is a family business? No cash, to pay the tax, does the business need to be sold to some else? liquidated to pay the tax? Or past the reigns from a individuals who answer to no one, to shareholders who demand a profit?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: conjur
Free money = free ride. How much more plain can it be?

No, it's not. They incurred a cost - their parents' death. That has a very real emotional, physical, and financial cost. While it may not be a cost payable to the government it's not as though it's a "free ride". Anyone can claim this, btw, because it applies to anyone and everyone.

We also allow people under a certain income level to receive tax refunds on money they earned. That's free money, isn't it?
Everyone's gotta die sometime. The kids (well, in most cases they aren't "kids" but, rather, adults) didn't earn anything. It was the work of their parents. As I said above...give an exemption of, maybe, half a mil or so, after that, sayonara.

Why?

As for your 2nd point, it's to allow certain people to be able to afford food...not that 75' Viking yacht.

Where does it say that in the code?
 
Originally posted by: AmbitV
The only argument in favor of the estate tax so far is that it allows someone who did nothing to inherit millions.

we've got to pay for society somehow. taxing an extremely small number of estates seems like a good enough way to do it.

it's no more morally just or wrong than income tax, sales tax, or property tax.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: fornax
Bad. Estate tax should be 100%

I agree with this and eliminate all other taxes....we would really have a meritocracy at that point, where the best, most talented would be most rewarded, not thier hiers. Where you keep all the fruits of your labors, no taxes, your whole life.

Waltons heirs? essentially worthless/unproductive welfare queens that just started with a bigger check if you really think about it. What do they contribute? What did they "earn"?

There are come problems with implementation. Like living estate benefits. I mean if dad sends kid to Harvard, right there is a huge head start over the rabble...but I guess eliminating advantages completly would be impossible.

You make NO sense. Are you saying that Walmart should now be the property of the government? All of Walton's shares in Walmart should go to the government? GODDAMN, you liberals are INSANE. WE DON'T LIVE IN A COMMUNIST STATE. WE OWN OUR PROPERTY, WE CAN DECIDE IF WE WANT TO GIVE IT TO SOMEONE IF WE WANT. It's not the government's right to just step in and take all our property when we die. The whole idea of that is totally ludicrous.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: conjur
Free money = free ride. How much more plain can it be?

No, it's not. They incurred a cost - their parents' death. That has a very real emotional, physical, and financial cost. While it may not be a cost payable to the government it's not as though it's a "free ride". Anyone can claim this, btw, because it applies to anyone and everyone.

We also allow people under a certain income level to receive tax refunds on money they earned. That's free money, isn't it?
Everyone's gotta die sometime. The kids (well, in most cases they aren't "kids" but, rather, adults) didn't earn anything. It was the work of their parents. As I said above...give an exemption of, maybe, half a mil or so, after that, sayonara.


As for your 2nd point, it's to allow certain people to be able to afford food...not that 75' Viking yacht.

So, when my father died in a plane crash when I was eight years old, he shouldn't have been able to leave my brother, myself, and my mother money? Even though there was a mortgage, car payments, schooling, clothing, food, etc? My mother at 42(without a college degree, but my father didn't have one either) should have just gone back into workforce, made a meager salary to support two kids, sell the house and most of our things, and then just smile and say oh well we didn't earn anything when Edward was alive, so let's just be happy the government took it? WTF is that about conjur? That's some of the most asinine commentary I've ever seen you make. My father was dead, therefore he could no longer provide for his MINOR children, and a wife who was the Homemaker for those children. So, because he died, the government should just say "OUR FVCKING MONEY" and all of you in this thread should just spit at us?

You're right, I didn't do anything to earn what my father left me. All I did was be born, and I didn't ask for that. I didn't ask to be driven home by my Aunt during school and seeing cars in the driveway and thinking we were having a goddamn Christmas Party. Yeah, it was real fun to walk in and see my mother crying her eyes out, and my brother basically unable to move, while my Grandmother sat in the hospital from the stroke she had when she found out. Yeah, we didn't do anything to earn it, but the government sure as fvck didn't either, so take the bullsh!t you are spewing, and realize that not everyone who can get screwed by the estate tax is some wealthy industrialist with an apartment in Manhattan, a flat in London, and a house in Aspen.

Everyone's gotta die sometime. The kids (well, in most cases they aren't "kids" but, rather, adults) didn't earn anything. It was the work of their parents.

Yeah, everyone does have to die sometime, but it doesn't mean the government is entitled to the fruits of their labor. I'm just a typical rich kid, conjur and so is my brother. He and his wife are Public School teachers(give about 20% of their income to charity/churches as well), and I'm in College working for a theme park in IT and Finance(same RE: charities). We are just hucking it up and laughing about how we defrauded 'ole Uncle Sam. We drink nothing but bottled water, and I won't shop anywhere but Saks, I mean GOSH. I only shop there after my nice meal at an exclusive private club though. Reality is, I eat the same, drink the same, and wear the same clothes as 99% of all college students.

I guess my Father's sin was trying to provide for his family, we CERTAINLY didn't deserve to have any of his money passed on to us. Life Insurance? Screw that! Everyone dies, accident or not. Government gets that. Company was negligent? Screw that! Government DESERVES it much more than his heirs. Right? I mean that's what you were saying? Do you even think about what you post anymore, or are you out to get the Republicans and Bush so much that you've abandoned logic and fairplay just to be an asshole? I realize my argument is entirely emotional, but how would you feel if you died when your kids were young and the government took everything because "they didn't earn it." How incredibly myopic. I used to like you and thought you were a great guy, but I'm not so sure that I like you anymore or can even stomach reading your posts anymore. This is the exact reason I don't read P&N that often anymore. Some people have really degraded as human beings by being in this forum.

This is an ownership society, not a country predicated on Government ownership of people's property just because they die. Perhaps you should peruse the Constitution?
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: fornax
Bad. Estate tax should be 100%

I agree with this and eliminate all other taxes....we would really have a meritocracy at that point, where the best, most talented would be most rewarded, not thier hiers. Where you keep all the fruits of your labors, no taxes, your whole life.

Waltons heirs? essentially worthless/unproductive welfare queens that just started with a bigger check if you really think about it. What do they contribute? What did they "earn"?

There are come problems with implementation. Like living estate benefits. I mean if dad sends kid to Harvard, right there is a huge head start over the rabble...but I guess eliminating advantages completly would be impossible.

You make NO sense. Are you saying that Walmart should now be the property of the government? All of Walton's shares in Walmart should go to the government? GODDAMN, you liberals are INSANE. WE DON'T LIVE IN A COMMUNIST STATE. WE OWN OUR PROPERTY, WE CAN DECIDE IF WE WANT TO GIVE IT TO SOMEONE IF WE WANT. It's not the government's right to just step in and take all our property when we die. The whole idea of that is totally ludicrous.


Not really, sell those puppies on the open market to buy subs and planes and stuff. Government can't run a biz like private intrests.

What makes it any more "right" to tax you when you are alive? Just as "COMMUNIST" just as redistributionist as when you're dead cept you don't feel it like the living.

PS: the government has whatever right we allow it to is the correct answer.
 
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: conjur
Free money = free ride. How much more plain can it be?

No, it's not. They incurred a cost - their parents' death. That has a very real emotional, physical, and financial cost. While it may not be a cost payable to the government it's not as though it's a "free ride". Anyone can claim this, btw, because it applies to anyone and everyone.

We also allow people under a certain income level to receive tax refunds on money they earned. That's free money, isn't it?
Everyone's gotta die sometime. The kids (well, in most cases they aren't "kids" but, rather, adults) didn't earn anything. It was the work of their parents. As I said above...give an exemption of, maybe, half a mil or so, after that, sayonara.


As for your 2nd point, it's to allow certain people to be able to afford food...not that 75' Viking yacht.

So, when my father died in a plane crash when I was eight years old, he shouldn't have been able to leave my brother, myself, and my mother money? Even though there was a mortgage, car payments, schooling, clothing, food, etc? My mother at 42(without a college degree, but my father didn't have one either) should have just gone back into workforce, made a meager salary to support two kids, sell the house and most of our things, and then just smile and say oh well we didn't earn anything when Edward was alive, so let's just be happy the government took it? WTF is that about conjur? That's some of the most asinine commentary I've ever seen you make. My father was dead, therefore he could no longer provide for his MINOR children, and a wife who was the Homemaker for those children. So, because he died, the government should just say "OUR FVCKING MONEY" and all of you in this thread should just spit at us?

You're right, I didn't do anything to earn what my father left me. All I did was be born, and I didn't ask for that. I didn't ask to be driven home by my Aunt during school and seeing cars in the driveway and thinking we were having a goddamn Christmas Party. Yeah, it was real fun to walk in and see my mother crying her eyes out, and my brother basically unable to move, while my Grandmother sat in the hospital from the stroke she had when she found out. Yeah, we didn't do anything to earn it, but the government sure as fvck didn't either, so take the bullsh!t you are spewing, and realize that not everyone who can get screwed by the estate tax is some wealthy industrialist with an apartment in Manhattan, a flat in London, and a house in Aspen.

Everyone's gotta die sometime. The kids (well, in most cases they aren't "kids" but, rather, adults) didn't earn anything. It was the work of their parents.

Yeah, everyone does have to die sometime, but it doesn't mean the government is entitled to the fruits of their labor. I'm just a typical rich kid, conjur and so is my brother. He and his wife are Public School teachers(give about 20% of their income to charity/churches as well), and I'm in College working for a theme park in IT and Finance(same RE: charities). We are just hucking it up and laughing about how we defrauded 'ole Uncle Sam. We drink nothing but bottled water, and I won't shop anywhere but Saks, I mean GOSH. I only shop there after my nice meal at an exclusive private club though. Reality is, I eat the same, drink the same, and wear the same clothes as 99% of all college students.

I guess my Father's sin was trying to provide for his family, we CERTAINLY didn't deserve to have any of his money passed on to us. Life Insurance? Screw that! Everyone dies, accident or not. Government gets that. Company was negligent? Screw that! Government DESERVES it much more than his heirs. Right? I mean that's what you were saying? Do you even think about what you post anymore, or are you out to get the Republicans and Bush so much that you've abandoned logic and fairplay just to be an asshole? I realize my argument is entirely emotional, but how would you feel if you died when your kids were young and the government took everything because "they didn't earn it." How incredibly myopic. I used to like you and thought you were a great guy, but I'm not so sure that I like you anymore or can even stomach reading your posts anymore. This is the exact reason I don't read P&N that often anymore. Some people have really degraded as human beings by being in this forum.

This is an ownership society, not a country predicated on Government ownership of people's property just because they die. Perhaps you should peruse the Constitution?


So what's fair in your estimation?

The largest wealth accumulations in the US, i.e. like rockerfellers, for generations have never been touched by the income tax, by the SS tax, by the medicare/medicaid taxes -- they're all unrealized capital gains either in the form of stock, property or trust distrubutions. (capital gains, already taxed at a lower rate, which republicans in Norquest seek to totally repeal) Without the estate tax, and now Capital gains tax, those material gains could remain untaxed forever, for generations. Should only wage earners pay taxes? Should we just get rid of taxes altogether? Curious from your POV, as to fair.
 
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: conjur
Everyone's gotta die sometime. The kids (well, in most cases they aren't "kids" but, rather, adults) didn't earn anything. It was the work of their parents. As I said above...give an exemption of, maybe, half a mil or so, after that, sayonara.


As for your 2nd point, it's to allow certain people to be able to afford food...not that 75' Viking yacht.
So, when my father died in a plane crash when I was eight years old, he shouldn't have been able to leave my brother, myself, and my mother money? Even though there was a mortgage, car payments, schooling, clothing, food, etc? My mother at 42(without a college degree, but my father didn't have one either) should have just gone back into workforce, made a meager salary to support two kids, sell the house and most of our things, and then just smile and say oh well we didn't earn anything when Edward was alive, so let's just be happy the government took it? WTF is that about conjur? That's some of the most asinine commentary I've ever seen you make. My father was dead, therefore he could no longer provide for his MINOR children, and a wife who was the Homemaker for those children. So, because he died, the government should just say "OUR FVCKING MONEY" and all of you in this thread should just spit at us?

You're right, I didn't do anything to earn what my father left me. All I did was be born, and I didn't ask for that. I didn't ask to be driven home by my Aunt during school and seeing cars in the driveway and thinking we were having a goddamn Christmas Party. Yeah, it was real fun to walk in and see my mother crying her eyes out, and my brother basically unable to move, while my Grandmother sat in the hospital from the stroke she had when she found out. Yeah, we didn't do anything to earn it, but the government sure as fvck didn't either, so take the bullsh!t you are spewing, and realize that not everyone who can get screwed by the estate tax is some wealthy industrialist with an apartment in Manhattan, a flat in London, and a house in Aspen.
Leave your reading comprehension at the door, Mill?

I'll even repeat what you quoted above:
As I said above...give an exemption of, maybe, half a mil or so, after that, sayonara.

If a family can't get by with up to $500,000 then what makes you think having more will make things better?


Everyone's gotta die sometime. The kids (well, in most cases they aren't "kids" but, rather, adults) didn't earn anything. It was the work of their parents.
Yeah, everyone does have to die sometime, but it doesn't mean the government is entitled to the fruits of their labor. I'm just a typical rich kid, conjur and so is my brother. He and his wife are Public School teachers(give about 20% of their income to charity/churches as well), and I'm in College working for a theme park in IT and Finance(same RE: charities). We are just hucking it up and laughing about how we defrauded 'ole Uncle Sam. We drink nothing but bottled water, and I won't shop anywhere but Saks, I mean GOSH. I only shop there after my nice meal at an exclusive private club though. Reality is, I eat the same, drink the same, and wear the same clothes as 99% of all college students.

I guess my Father's sin was trying to provide for his family, we CERTAINLY didn't deserve to have any of his money passed on to us. Life Insurance? Screw that! Everyone dies, accident or not. Government gets that. Company was negligent? Screw that! Government DESERVES it much more than his heirs. Right? I mean that's what you were saying? Do you even think about what you post anymore, or are you out to get the Republicans and Bush so much that you've abandoned logic and fairplay just to be an asshole? I realize my argument is entirely emotional, but how would you feel if you died when your kids were young and the government took everything because "they didn't earn it." How incredibly myopic. I used to like you and thought you were a great guy, but I'm not so sure that I like you anymore or can even stomach reading your posts anymore. This is the exact reason I don't read P&N that often anymore. Some people have really degraded as human beings by being in this forum.
I'm...just....so....hurt by those comments. How I will ever get through the day?!

Shed the fvcking sarcasm and wake up.

This is an ownership society, not a country predicated on Government ownership of people's property just because they die. Perhaps you should peruse the Constitution?
This is also a country that has a responsibility to provide for the safety, education, health, and welfare of its citizens. Without opportunities for education, preventive health services, protection, etc. from what kind of job pool will these rich do-nothings pull to fill their factories and call centers?
 
Originally posted by: AmbitV
The only argument in favor of the estate tax so far is that it allows someone who did nothing to inherit millions.

OK, but what's with the arbitraty 40 or 50% number? If the person did nothing, doesn't that mean they should get nothing? And don't compare this "unearned income" to stock dividends or interest, because the heir made no initial investment.

The way I see it, all those in favor of the estate tax have to logically be in favor of a 100% estate tax.

No, that's absurd.

What about flax tax supporters? It doesn't matter what the source of the income is, if you have income, it should be taxed the same way, whether the income be from salary, dividends, capital gains, or inheritance.
 
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I am against the "Death Tax" evenm though it does tend to favor the Rich.

How could it favor the rich? In term of raw dollars, yes, the rich do end up richer. But, if you are a billionaire and your uncle Billionare dies and leaves you another billion it isn't really going to change your life.

If on the other hand you make $50,000/yr. combined income and your uncle leaves you $100,000 that's a pretty awesome and potentially life changing sum of money.

It favors the rich because your uncle leaving you $100,000 wasn't taxed before. Only estates of greater than $3.5 million were taxed before this change.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: SuperTool
My company put the effort to earn the money they pay me. That doesn't exclude my salary from being taxed. So this is a worthless arguement.
The money was already taxed as the parents earned it.
Not the earnings on their money nor the appreciation on their assets.

How is the earnings on the money not taxed? If the kids sell the asset, they are taxed on the capital gains.

Any way you look at it, it is double taxation, which I think is ridiculous. If you are going to double-tax something, why not triple-tax it? Quadruple?

Do you think that double taxation is equitable? And do you subscribe to the idea that if someone CAN pay a tax, they SHOULD pay it?
 
Originally posted by: berserker
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: SuperTool
My company put the effort to earn the money they pay me. That doesn't exclude my salary from being taxed. So this is a worthless arguement.
The money was already taxed as the parents earned it.
Not the earnings on their money nor the appreciation on their assets.

How is the earnings on the money not taxed? If the kids sell the asset, they are taxed on the capital gains.

Actually, the inheritors base value of it was the value at the time of inheritance, so you bypass capital gains.
 
Good. I don't care what the actual value of said property is, the government has no right to fleece my family simply because a dying grandfather left us property. If the property were to be sold afterwards, any applicable taxes charged therein is fine and understandable, but the Feds taking money on property that is staying in the family is utter horseshit. :|
 
People are getting way off track in their philisophical discussions here. The fact of the matter is only a very tiny minority of the population is subject to ANY estate taxation now. Ronald Reagen took care of this years ago.

A more correct phasing of the proper issue is are you willing to further increase the government's deficit spending (and thus force the cost onto our children, and on us-in the future) in order to spare the very wealthest elite?
 
Originally posted by: berserker

Any way you look at it, it is double taxation, which I think is ridiculous.

I'm just so tired of this argument. You're money is double-taxed every single day. It's called Sales Tax.

The fact of the matter is that the government is going to tax money everytime it changes hands. Why should inheritance be any different?
 
Originally posted by: Thump553
People are getting way off track in their philisophical discussions here. The fact of the matter is only a very tiny minority of the population is subject to ANY estate taxation now. Ronald Reagen took care of this years ago.

A more correct phasing of the proper issue is are you willing to further increase the government's deficit spending (and thus force the cost onto our children, and on us-in the future) in order to spare the very wealthest elite?

Bingo. :thumbsup:
 
No, it's rewarding. Do nothing, earn millions. How is that not rewarding?
No it is not rewarding. If someone acquires a tremendous amount of wealth during their lifetime through hard work, smart investments or even hitting the lottery, they have already paid taxes on that income.

They are entitled to pass the wealth that wealth on to subsequent generations without Uncle Sam double dipping into the cookie jar.

It is part of the American dream...some of these rich people you seem to despise busted their asses so that their children and grandchildren could stop to smell the flowers and enjoy life a bit.

Let people pass on their inheritance but tax it as income.
It is income that has already been taxed. To tax an inheritance is double dipping by the government.

I'm just so tired of this argument. You're money is double-taxed every single day. It's called Sales Tax.

The people who gain these inheritances will presumably use this money to purchase goods and services, which they will pay a Sales tax on...so with an inheritance tax, the government is essentially triple-taxing this money.
 
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
No, it's rewarding. Do nothing, earn millions. How is that not rewarding?
No it is not rewarding. If someone acquires a tremendous amount of wealth during their lifetime through hard work, smart investments or even hitting the lottery, they have already paid taxes on that income.

They are entitled to pass the wealth that wealth on to subsequent generations without Uncle Sam double dipping into the cookie jar.

It is part of the American dream...some of these rich people you seem to despise busted their asses so that their children and grandchildren could stop to smell the flowers and enjoy life a bit.

Let people pass on their inheritance but tax it as income.
It is income that has already been taxed. To tax an inheritance is double dipping by the government.

So property taxes, sales taxes, etc isn't double-dipping?
 
Originally posted by: redlotus
Originally posted by: berserker

Any way you look at it, it is double taxation, which I think is ridiculous.

I'm just so tired of this argument. You're money is double-taxed every single day. It's called Sales Tax.

The fact of the matter is that the government is going to tax money everytime it changes hands. Why should inheritance be any different?

This is known as the "two wrongs make a right" theory of government.
 
Back
Top