House votes to end federal estate taxes

[Zebo]

This is just the normal way of things guys. Since about 1975 I believe a slow shift has been happening in this country. A trajectory toward where almost all of a society's productive assets are controlled by a small elite who then work to make sure that things stay just the way they are. How do they do that? Campaign contributions, consultancies, joint investments, presidential library and inaugural contributions, speech fees and the like... Notice no poor boys, on either side, are even an option for you to vote for politcal office? We may lack the "House of Lords" like old england, but it's happening before your very eyes. Lord Bush's rise to president eight short years after his father and Jebs almost certain election should cause some alarm bells to ring in our supposed democratic society. This type of dynasty is the real danger of thier no cap gain policy already in the works and no inheritance dream, a hereditary economic aristocracy which we have seen many times and saw here in the second half of the 19th century. It was called plutocracy. Google it. Very dangerous. Very anti-american.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: magomago
out of curiosity I am wondering who was pushing for this repeal? Just wondering~

The rich....for the rich.

Let's reward inactivity.

its not rewarding, its just not punishing - there is a big differnce.

No, it's rewarding. Do nothing, earn millions. How is that not rewarding?

Let me rephrase:

If the computer does nothing; not taking 1/2 an inhertiance - you consider that rewarding?

Quite frankly i'd rather see the government encourage people saving, and passing it on to generations. Then preasuring peope to blow as much as possible before they die, to keep the government from getting one last big piece of them when their laid out on the slab.

Besides, now you start getting into issues of family own and run business - those get much more difficult when half of it is taxed.

Let people pass on their inheritance but tax it as income.

Republicans believe that people working two jobs trying to make a life for themselves should bear the tax burden, but people getting an inheritance from their parents, or dividend from their stocks, or capital gains, without lifting a finger should not have to pay any taxes. At the time when the country is in a huge fiscal hole, the middle class is struggling with high energy and healthcare costs, and we are spending billions fighting a war, the GOP takes time to pass estate tax relief that will worsen the fiscal condition of this country.

Who the hell are you to assume that such success comes without effort? Without lifelong, intense, soul-wrenching work? Jesus Christ, the amount of ignorance and idiocy in your post is astounding.

Getting an inheritance from your parents takes effort on your part?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: AmbitV
Text

"WASHINGTON - The House voted Wednesday to eliminate federal estate taxes in 2010 and beyond, a repeal that Republicans hailed but Democrats said would reward the richest families at the steep cost of deeper federal deficits.

House lawmakers voted 272-162 to prevent the tax on inherited estates from reappearing after its one-year disappearance in 2010. The bill would end the tax at a cost of roughly $290 billion over the next decade. "

I am against the "Death Tax" evenm though it does tend to favor the Rich.

We pay enough Taxes in life that it has been sad that even the Dead and the family they leave behind still gets Taxed yet again.

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.

BTW, it does not matter how if inheritance requires effort or not. What matters is that if I bust my tail all my life and want to leave my estate to my children then I should be able to do so. It could change my family tree and in turn help make my children the next 'rich' people a lot of posters here seem to despise.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: AmbitV
Text

"WASHINGTON - The House voted Wednesday to eliminate federal estate taxes in 2010 and beyond, a repeal that Republicans hailed but Democrats said would reward the richest families at the steep cost of deeper federal deficits.

House lawmakers voted 272-162 to prevent the tax on inherited estates from reappearing after its one-year disappearance in 2010. The bill would end the tax at a cost of roughly $290 billion over the next decade. "

I am against the "Death Tax" evenm though it does tend to favor the Rich.

We pay enough Taxes in life that it has been sad that even the Dead and the family they leave behind still gets Taxed yet again.

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.

Which is why this tax is already progressive.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: shrumpage

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.

Wow - one of the best perks about being in America is creating a better life for your kids. Give them chances you did have, etc. Sad to see that people would like to crimp that.

No one of the best perks about being american is meritocracy, where the best rise to the top, on ability and hard work, where the most talented continue to be the most rewarded and unlocks the fullest potential of society

Which giving away estates to people is just the opposite, something for nothing. Rewards sloth and kills competition by generational control of assets. Creates dynasties and a elite capitalist class.

Yeah, a person can rise from the bottom to the top making it big - but you want your values to dictate how that person can provide a better launching pad for their childern and grandchildern.

Please explain how me having more money then you can kill competition? Even though there have been families that have maintained wealth for generations - i haven't seen a drop off in competition.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Who the hell are you to assume that such success comes without effort? Without lifelong, intense, soul-wrenching work? Jesus Christ, the amount of ignorance and idiocy in your post is astounding.

Getting an inheritance from your parents takes effort on your part?
[/quote]

The ability for me to leave my children the fruits of my labor does.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Who the hell are you to assume that such success comes without effort?

When success is handed down to you by nature of you being born it's hard to see any effort there.

Who are you talking about?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Who the hell are you to assume that such success comes without effort? Without lifelong, intense, soul-wrenching work? Jesus Christ, the amount of ignorance and idiocy in your post is astounding.

Getting an inheritance from your parents takes effort on your part?

The ability for me to leave my children the fruits of my labor does.[/quote]

And we just overlook that some kid, by not doing anything, gets a fat inheritance and/or trust fund? What if that same kid in turn passes down what he didn't use any effort to get to his kids? Where do you see the effort in that scenario?

 

[nageov3t]

you mean the Paris Hilton tax cut? 😛

last I heard, this is going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 trillion during the first decade.

so much for the Republicans actually wanting to save social security. it seems all Congress is doing hurting the government's financial situation even more.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: shrumpage

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.

Wow - one of the best perks about being in America is creating a better life for your kids. Give them chances you did have, etc. Sad to see that people would like to crimp that.

No one of the best perks about being american is meritocracy, where the best rise to the top, on ability and hard work, where the most talented continue to be the most rewarded and unlocks the fullest potential of society

Which giving away estates to people is just the opposite, something for nothing. Rewards sloth and kills competition by generational control of assets. Creates dynasties and a elite capitalist class.

Yeah, a person can rise from the bottom to the top making it big - but you want your values to dictate how that person can provide a better launching pad for their childern and grandchildern.

Please explain how me having more money then you can kill competition? Even though there have been families that have maintained wealth for generations - i haven't seen a drop off in competition.

Not really.

I don't view it as penalizing them. How can you penalize a corpse? The penalty is paying any taxes while you're alive.

 

[Tom]

The point is the government costs money and has to be paid for. All taxes are unfair to someone, by eliminating one kind of tax you are just going to shift the tax burden to someone else.

The Democratic alternative exempted up to 6 million from estate taxes, and didn't have the hidden capital gains tax increase in the Republican plan. It also didn't add hundreds of billions to the deficit.

(my source for the figures was a guy on C-Span.)

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Tom
The point is the government costs money and has to be paid for. All taxes are unfair to someone, by eliminating one kind of tax you are just going to shift the tax burden to someone else.

There's that other option which everyone refuses to consider - cut spending. That way, no one bears the burden.

 

[AmbitV]

Parents leave behind much more than just money. Some parents have the foresight to get involved in the lives of their children, ensure a good education for them, etc. Other parents could care less about their chidlren and hardly even speak to them. Are we supposed to even that out too?

Parents should be allowed to leave behind however much they want to their children without being penalized for it. We already have a progressive income tax to redistribute income from the wealthy to the less fortunate.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: AmbitV
Parents leave behind much more than just money. Some parents have the foresight to get involved in the lives of their children, ensure a good education for them, etc. Other parents could care less about their chidlren and hardly even speak to them. Are we supposed to even that out too?

Parents should be allowed to leave behind however much they want to their children without being penalized for it. We already have a progressive income tax to redistribute income from the wealthy to the poor.

When did the term for low-income people go from "poor" to "less fortunate". Not all success is luck.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Who the hell are you to assume that such success comes without effort? Without lifelong, intense, soul-wrenching work? Jesus Christ, the amount of ignorance and idiocy in your post is astounding.

Getting an inheritance from your parents takes effort on your part?

The ability for me to leave my children the fruits of my labor does.

And we just overlook that some kid, by not doing anything, gets a fat inheritance and/or trust fund? What if that same kid in turn passes down what he didn't use any effort to get to his kids? Where do you see the effort in that scenario?[/quote]

I still see the effort of the parents, it's their responsibility to raise the child effectively. Otherwise it's none of my concern how he lives his life.

 

[Jhhnn]

Taxing the proceeds from large estates as income doesn't deny the ability to carry wealth from one generation to the next, at all, provided that such taxes are reasonable. Current tax rates on high incomes are more than reasonable, they're at their lowest point since WW2.

Where's all the usual rightwing chatter about hard work, standing on your own two feet, not giving anybody any handouts, no free lunch, yada, yada, yada?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

When did the term for low-income people go from "poor" to "less fortunate". Not all success is luck.

It is and it isn't. I think I see your point, but it's mostly just 'luck' or 'fate' or whatever re who your parents are. My in-laws are first-generation Americans of Asian descent, and while they were not born into wealth (my father-in-law was an enlisted sailor with 5 kids and stay-at-home wife), they were born into a strong, traditional family environment such that they're all educated and wealthy now. If they were born into a different home, I don't know if their outcome would be the same. They had great parents, but it's not like they chose them.

 

[AmbitV]

Let's assume the 100% inheritance tax that some people are advocating here. What incentive would any wealthy person have to save under that system? The incentive would be to consume as much of your wealth as possible in your lifetime. Is that what we really want?

 

[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 to get windfall of 10,000 times that much is a go getter.:roll: Just watch her turn it into 2 billion in your lifetime... I gurantee it.😛

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: AmbitV
Let's assume the 100% inheritance tax that some people are advocating here. What incentive would any wealthy person have to save under that system? The incentive would be to consume as much of your wealth as possible in your lifetime. Is that what we really want?

why not? it would drive demand for high-end luxury goods, creating jobs and putting money back into the economy.

(not that I'm advocating a 100% inheritance tax)

 

[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?

 

[AmbitV]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: AmbitV
Let's assume the 100% inheritance tax that some people are advocating here. What incentive would any wealthy person have to save under that system? The incentive would be to consume as much of your wealth as possible in your lifetime. Is that what we really want?

why not? it would drive demand for high-end luxury goods, creating jobs and putting money back into the economy.

(not that I'm advocating a 100% inheritance tax)

What about investments in the capital stock of this country? Under a 100% inheritance tax, the rich have no incentive to make long term investments. Sure very young people will still invest, but as they get older the incentive will be to liquidate and consume. The overall capital stock of this country will decrease.

Most wealthy heir inherit investments, not hard liquid cash. Even the oft cited Paris Hilton will probably receive a stake in the Hilton business, not just a pile of benjamins.

 

[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. It's my concern as a tax payer if the system is equitable from my POV. Ideally we'd all pay zero taxes since it's all theft. Best we can hope for is some type of equitable theivry.

 

[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)

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: conjur
Let people pass on their inheritance but tax it as income.

Republicans believe that people working two jobs trying to make a life for themselves should bear the tax burden, but people getting an inheritance from their parents, or dividend from their stocks, or capital gains, without lifting a finger should not have to pay any taxes. At the time when the country is in a huge fiscal hole, the middle class is struggling with high energy and healthcare costs, and we are spending billions fighting a war, the GOP takes time to pass estate tax relief that will worsen the fiscal condition of this country.

Who the hell are you to assume that such success comes without effort? Without lifelong, intense, soul-wrenching work? Jesus Christ, the amount of ignorance and idiocy in your post is astounding.

Getting an inheritance from your parents takes effort on your part?

Apparently so.