Please explain why the death/estate tax is fair.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
ah, I knew you would pop up the moment I posted craig ole buddy ;)

It's ok if you can't admit it. It's still true.

No, it's the view of th eignorant, who search for an explanatin for something they can't understand, the way the primitive natives made up explanations.

Humankind has always had many who are resistant to growth of civilization - thinking things are ust fine as they are - and a few who can lead the human race to growth.

For a whimsical anecdote, when the Golden Gate Bridge was proposed, a group of San Franciscans opposed it as an eyesore ruining the view.

For a more relevant anecdote, when a few guys with ideas proposed creating a new nation from the English colonies in America, as many opposed the notion as agreed with it (and as many yet again had no real opinion), and many of those who supported it were motivated mostly by the basic economic issues of England's taxation as opposed to the notion of this 'democracy'. But people came around.

You know which group you are in. You fear the progressives, and are blind to the problems of ocncentrated wealth. You resist any change that would further evolve society, and prefer to stay with the 'tried and true' simple maxims which inevitably lead to oligarchy, and that's just fine with you. You make up fears about any 'liberal' changes, and minimize the problems of the oligarchy.

And without any understanding of the issues of the concentration of wealth, you look at the people suggesting it the way Republicans (and some democrats) have look at leftist governments in the Americas - unable to see them for what they are, they paint them in the familiar smears of 'commies' and 'evil' and Must Smit Them for the cause of good. We sold missiles to Iran illegally to get cash for our terrorist army in Nicaragua to fight a guy who cared for the poor, and ended up in power today - whaddya know, harmlessly.

But had you asked them, they'd have said with the same conviction you have about envy, how evil the leftists were, and how all the measures were justified.

You and they are deluded, of course. You couldn't make up Ronal Reagan calling the hodge-podge of former death squads and terrorists "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers", but that's what he said. And neither of you are going to be able to understan the error of your ideology.

But your simple statement, is wrong. It's not correct that it's about envy. You simply put your ignorance on display when you say it.

And like the humantarian I am, when I see a horse wanting for water, I post the location of some water. You, being more the donkey than a horse, stubbornly bray and refuse.

What, exactly, other than your opinion, can you offer in the way of proof of your claim that the basis is envy - and if that's all you have, why are you so quick to say they don't know their own opinion? I'd say the reason is that you are envious of the liberals' politics, and you can't prove that wrong, now can you? Now, you can repeat your ignorance, as if saying it again will make it any less wrong.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
At it's core, the estate tax is simply "we're envious that someone has more, we need to take it away from them". Liberal whiners will of course deny that and claim all sorts of lofty ideals, but it's simply "they are rich, why do they deserve that money? Take it from them and give it to me!".

<edit> Thanks Craig, you proved my points, right on cue ;) Proclaim lofty goals, while simply advocating redistribution of wealth that others have rightfully earned to someone else who has not.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
It's not class warfare, social envy, wealth distribution, or any of those talking points the powers that be sell us peasants on. It's an excuse for government to put their grubby hands on more money. And that's bad.
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
I'm ok with a SMALL portion of state tax. The progressive state tax up to 90% is completely ridiculous in my opinion and as someone else said I think this is definitely class warfare. The government doesn't need more money, they need to use less money. Enabling them to tax MORE gives them reason to spend MORE which makes them less efficient and MORE wasteful. MORE government is BAD. MORE = BAD.

Besides, if I build up a billion dollar empire and worked my ass off so my kids don't have to work, well thats my fucking choice isn't it? I don't care if you think its fair or not, its my money and my family should be able to do with it as they please.

I want to go back to the days where the people actually had control over their lives and lived with some autonomy. I don't understand why everyone wants to give their shit to the government. Or why they want to give Bill Gates shit to the government. All the government is going to do with it is piss away more money, we've had enough of that haven't we?
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
ah, I knew you would pop up the moment I posted craig ole buddy ;)

It's ok if you can't admit it. It's still true.

No, it's the view of th eignorant, who search for an explanatin for something they can't understand, the way the primitive natives made up explanations.

Humankind has always had many who are resistant to growth of civilization - thinking things are ust fine as they are - and a few who can lead the human race to growth.

For a whimsical anecdote, when the Golden Gate Bridge was proposed, a group of San Franciscans opposed it as an eyesore ruining the view.

For a more relevant anecdote, when a few guys with ideas proposed creating a new nation from the English colonies in America, as many opposed the notion as agreed with it (and as many yet again had no real opinion), and many of those who supported it were motivated mostly by the basic economic issues of England's taxation as opposed to the notion of this 'democracy'. But people came around.

You know which group you are in. You fear the progressives, and are blind to the problems of ocncentrated wealth. You resist any change that would further evolve society, and prefer to stay with the 'tried and true' simple maxims which inevitably lead to oligarchy, and that's just fine with you. You make up fears about any 'liberal' changes, and minimize the problems of the oligarchy.

And without any understanding of the issues of the concentration of wealth, you look at the people suggesting it the way Republicans (and some democrats) have look at leftist governments in the Americas - unable to see them for what they are, they paint them in the familiar smears of 'commies' and 'evil' and Must Smit Them for the cause of good. We sold missiles to Iran illegally to get cash for our terrorist army in Nicaragua to fight a guy who cared for the poor, and ended up in power today - whaddya know, harmlessly.

But had you asked them, they'd have said with the same conviction you have about envy, how evil the leftists were, and how all the measures were justified.

You and they are deluded, of course. You couldn't make up Ronal Reagan calling the hodge-podge of former death squads and terrorists "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers", but that's what he said. And neither of you are going to be able to understan the error of your ideology.

But your simple statement, is wrong. It's not correct that it's about envy. You simply put your ignorance on display when you say it.

And like the humantarian I am, when I see a horse wanting for water, I post the location of some water. You, being more the donkey than a horse, stubbornly bray and refuse.

What, exactly, other than your opinion, can you offer in the way of proof of your claim that the basis is envy - and if that's all you have, why are you so quick to say they don't know their own opinion? I'd say the reason is that you are envious of the liberals' politics, and you can't prove that wrong, now can you? Now, you can repeat your ignorance, as if saying it again will make it any less wrong.




All I got out of that is there is a problem with the concentration of wealth. Your solution to this problem is to tax those people and give it to the government? Is the government going to somehow solve this problem with that extra money? Or are you simply about taking from the rich because they have to much?


 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
It's not class warfare, social envy, wealth distribution, or any of those talking points the powers that be sell us peasants on. It's an excuse for government to put their grubby hands on more money. And that's bad.

True. It's sold to the have-nots as a redistribution of wealth to them by taking from the wealthy, but in reality it's just going to be money taken from the wealthy and handed to the government to waste.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
The death tax is such a waste of time. The ~30 billion it generates is such a gnat on the ass of a rhino it is barely worth arguing over. I just have to laugh at people who insist it is in place to keep wealth from accumulating at the top. 30 billion out of a 14 trillion dollar economy is a joke. 30 billion out of 2.5 trillion in revenues is also a joke. We see a 2% increase in GDP and the taxes generated from that activity most likely outpaces the inheritance tax through its entire lifetime.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
You resist any change that would further evolve society,

That would be because it's not about "evolving society". It's about setting up society to serve the individual. The only legitimate purpose for a society is to create an environment in which it is technically possible for an individual to succeed. Notice that this does not mean that society should ensure everyone succeeds. Nor does it mean that society should attempt to balance the playing field. It means, simply, that the purpose of a society is to provide an environment that is stable against foreign intervention and to provide a basic framework of law to allow consistency in the basic rules of interaction.

When a society attempts to do more than that, it serves only to restrict individual expression and hinder the progress of true dynamic Quality.

ZV
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,067
1,550
126
Death tax is indeed fair. IMO it needs to be very very high for high value estates. Kids should never ride on their parents coattails for their whole life.
If somebody has 100M net worth when they die, their kids should not be "set for life" without ever having to work a day in their lives.
Also, sentimental things like family heirlooms, antiques, etc should be exempt from said death tax.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Death tax is indeed fair. IMO it needs to be very very high for high value estates. Kids should never ride on their parents coattails for their whole life.
If somebody has 100M net worth when they die, their kids should not be "set for life" without ever having to work a day in their lives.
Also, sentimental things like family heirlooms, antiques, etc should be exempt from said death tax.

Why do you care if somebody else doesnt work a day in their life? Lots of bums on welfare do the same. Would you call for abandoning that?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,630
2,014
126
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Death tax is indeed fair. IMO it needs to be very very high for high value estates. Kids should never ride on their parents coattails for their whole life.
If somebody has 100M net worth when they die, their kids should not be "set for life" without ever having to work a day in their lives.
Also, sentimental things like family heirlooms, antiques, etc should be exempt from said death tax.

You are a shining example of what Pokerguy was talking about.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,067
1,550
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Death tax is indeed fair. IMO it needs to be very very high for high value estates. Kids should never ride on their parents coattails for their whole life.
If somebody has 100M net worth when they die, their kids should not be "set for life" without ever having to work a day in their lives.
Also, sentimental things like family heirlooms, antiques, etc should be exempt from said death tax.

Why do you care if somebody else doesnt work a day in their life? Lots of bums on welfare do the same. Would you call for abandoning that?

Yes, welfare needs to be cut off too. Also social security should be optional.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,651
2,395
126
If possible, I'd like to see a modification of the original poll-or maybe a new one-to ask this question: What do you think is the minimum size estate (a) for a single person or (b) for a married person, first to die that the federal government currently imposes any estate tax on whatsoever?

Further, I'd like people to answer what they think the death tax rates are.

Finally, I'd like to see a question as to what percentage of deaths in the US are currently subject to any federal death tax?

I strongly suspect there is a lot of misinformation going around, and that a lot of the fear and anger represented in the posts in this thread is totally unwarranted by the facts.

That is, unless you are a billionaire's kid-then I understand your personal concern.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Death tax is indeed fair. IMO it needs to be very very high for high value estates. Kids should never ride on their parents coattails for their whole life.
If somebody has 100M net worth when they die, their kids should not be "set for life" without ever having to work a day in their lives.
Also, sentimental things like family heirlooms, antiques, etc should be exempt from said death tax.

Why do you care if somebody else doesnt work a day in their life? Lots of bums on welfare do the same. Would you call for abandoning that?

Yes, welfare needs to be cut off too. Also social security should be optional.

Well at least you are consistent.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Thump553
If possible, I'd like to see a modification of the original poll-or maybe a new one-to ask this question: What do you think is the minimum size estate (a) for a single person or (b) for a married person, first to die that the federal government currently imposes any estate tax on whatsoever?

Further, I'd like people to answer what they think the death tax rates are.

I believe right now the rate is 46-50% above 1.5 million per dependent. For example I have an estate of 6 million with 4 children. I die, each recieves 1.5 million tax free from my estate.

Finally, I'd like to see a question as to what percentage of deaths in the US are currently subject to any federal death tax?

Very few, believe there were under 8,000 deaths in the US last year that were subjected to the estate tax.

I strongly suspect there is a lot of misinformation going around, and that a lot of the fear and anger represented in the posts in this thread is totally unwarranted by the facts.

That is, unless you are a billionaire's kid-then I understand your personal concern.

Most likely. I am meh on the whole estate tax. My complaint are people truely believe it stop concentrations of wealth. And it is mainly used as a class warfare talking point for candidates. And all of this talking and bickering over a tax that generates 1% of revenues for our govt is silly.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk

The whole point of the estate tax is to prevent the creation of dynasties and entrenched classes.

I didn't need to read much further than the first reply to find someone that is able to see the problem of NOT having an estate tax. Even the name is stupid framing of the issue by those that oppose it. It is NOT an estate tax but an Inheritance tax.

Genealogy links

Bush, Kerry, Cheney, Obama all related to Vlad the Impaler (Dracula)

The "ruling" class has remained just that because we continue to allow the younger generations of those families to hold onto all of their wealth/power through the guilt of religion in generations past and through the propaganda of "unfairness" today.
 

Capitalizt

Banned
Nov 28, 2004
1,513
0
0
I don't fear "progressives" craig. I fear tyrants...and those who sympathize with tyrannical and authoritarian ideas (like yourself). It has nothing to do with opposing "progress" and everything to do with opposing more government force, coercion, and social engineering...things you absolutely worship.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Death tax is indeed fair. IMO it needs to be very very high for high value estates. Kids should never ride on their parents coattails for their whole life.
If somebody has 100M net worth when they die, their kids should not be "set for life" without ever having to work a day in their lives.
Also, sentimental things like family heirlooms, antiques, etc should be exempt from said death tax.

I agree here. I think what people forget is that our regular tax system used to have a 90% tax on the wealthiest......

People like Frank Sinatra, Howard Hughes were still filthy rich even with such a high REGULAR tax rate.

I am on the same page as Warren Buffet here and what BID said above. I don't believe in dynastical wealth and every person should provide for themselves in some way in society. I do think the 3 million dollar exemption needs to be adjusted every year for inflation so that it grows with it.

I think people here think that estate tax takes EVERYTHING from you, which it doesn't. It takes a good chunk, but not all. If I am dying with a 10 mil estate, my kids will still get more than 5 million.... and thats PLENTY.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
I don't fear "progressives" craig. I fear tyrants...and those who sympathize with tyrannical and authoritarian ideas (like yourself). It has nothing to do with opposing "progress" and everything to do with opposing more government force, coercion, and social engineering...things you absolutely worship.

Do you not see the irony of your post and views?

You fear tyrants yet you want to enable family dynasties so that the very thing that you fear is more likely to occur.

Look at the link I posted above:

Bush, Cheney, Obama, Kerry, the Royal families of a few European countries are all related! Why is that? Because they were able to continue to pass their wealth down enabling their future generations to be able to continue to hold power or rise to power without having to go through the daily grind that the vast majority of us do or worrying about how they will make ends meet.
 

Capitalizt

Banned
Nov 28, 2004
1,513
0
0
Right, I don't doubt the validity of those sources, but it is hardly surprising that many people are related if you really consider 11th, 12th, 13th cousins etc to be "relatives".
You and I are likely related if you want to go that far. Nearly all 3rd and 4th generation Americans are related to each other in some way. It is an absolute joke to assume some grand conspiracy is involved because of distant blood relations. Look at some other members of the Bush/Kerry power conspiracy I found:

http://www.familyforest.com/Kerry_Bush_Cousins.html

Apparently Charles Darwin, Clint Eastwood, George Orwell, Georgia O'Keeffe, Humphrey Bogart, Johnny Carson, Jamie Lee Curtis, John Hinckley, Jr., Katharine Hepburn, Lucille Ball, Marilyn Monroe, Michael Douglass, Norman Rockwell, Orson Wells, Jack London, Glenn Close, Bridget Fonda, Sigourney Weaver, and the Wright Brothers are all in on it. They are all distant relatives of Bush/Kerry. CONSPIRACYYYY!!
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
175
106
Interesting metaphor... let's say a group of three people get together to move a large pile of stones. There are two normal sized adults and one 6'6" body builder. The two normal sized people say "hey, we should be able to get this done quickly because the body builder can carry twice what we can!" The body builder says "no! I worked hard for these muscles! They're mine to do whatever I want with! I refuse to carry any more stones than you do!"

The wealthy can and should be taxed at a higher rate because the taxes hurt them the least. I'm not talking astronomical increases, but enough so that because of their wealth they can take the pressure off the average citizen. As with the metaphor above, it simply makes sense that those with more ability and resources should be willing to shoulder a larger load for the greater good.

For example, let's say we have a government that needs $1,000,000 a year to perform it's functions. The population consists of 3 people who make $1,000,000 a year and 47 people who make $50,000 per year.

Should this government tax everyone equally by taking $20,000 from each person leaving the 3 with $998,000 per year and the remaining 47 with $30,000?

Why not tax the 3 wealthy citizens $200,000 per year, leaving them with $800,000 per year, and tax the remaining 47 people $8,500 per year leaving them with $41,500?

Now, what our government does with that money (wastes much of it) is another matter of debate.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Right, I don't doubt the validity of those sources, but it is hardly surprising that many people are related if you really consider 11th, 12th, 13th cousins etc to be "relatives".
You and I are likely related if you want to go that far. Nearly all 3rd and 4th generation Americans are related to each other in some way. It is an absolute joke to assume some grand conspiracy is involved because of distant blood relations. Look at some other members of the Bush/Kerry power conspiracy I found:

http://www.familyforest.com/Kerry_Bush_Cousins.html

Apparently Charles Darwin, Clint Eastwood, George Orwell, Georgia O'Keeffe, Humphrey Bogart, Johnny Carson, Jamie Lee Curtis, John Hinckley, Jr., Katharine Hepburn, Lucille Ball, Marilyn Monroe, Michael Douglass, Norman Rockwell, Orson Wells, Jack London, Glenn Close, Bridget Fonda, Sigourney Weaver, and the Wright Brothers are all in on it. They are all distant relatives of Bush/Kerry. CONSPIRACYYYY!!

Hahaha well I am sure those are my cousins as well :D

People love to believe in a vast conspiracy. Who knows why.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Infohawk
You have to start with the question, "Do you think taxation is fair?" Then you go to the question, "Is progressive taxation (read taxing higher wealth/income people more) fair?" If your answer to either of these is no, then there's no point talking about the estate tax.

With that said, double-taxation is not that big of a problem in itself. The disadvantages of double-taxation is that it is messy and creates more administrative overhead. For that reason I'm not a big fan of corporate income taxes. On the other hand, there are times when it's useful, as with the estate tax.

1) The estate tax is "fair" in the same way that any other taxation scheme is fair. We are primates. We are social. It's normal that humans place privileges, restrictions and duties on each other. (The fact that you ask this makes me think you have problem with taxation generally, which is another issue.)
2) These days, I would say $4,000,000 per child should not be taxed
3) After that, I would increase it progressively up to 90%. If you have a billion dollar estate, then I would tax you $900m UNLESS you want to leave it to non-profits or even corporate entities.

The whole point of the estate tax is to prevent the creation of dynasties and entrenched classes.
So in other words I work my ass off and build up a billion dollar company and then die in some freak accident involving naked super models and the government gets to sweep in and take $900 million of my hard earned money??? What the hell is wrong with you??


The ONLY money government should get via death taxes is money from unrealized gains.

IE. Tomorrow I go out and buy $1000 worth of Microsoft stocks.

20 years from now I die and those shares are now worth $10,000. During that time I never sold or traded or did anything else with them. At that point my estate should be taxed the $9000 worth of capital gains I would have had I sold the stocks while alive. After that they government should get nothing.

The estate tax is nothing but a class warfare tax. "The rich have lots of money so let's take it from them!"

Who cares about what happens to your money after you are dead. Won't be your problem anymore. Though I agree, 90% seems a bit harsh.

1.) I think it is fair because the person who is getting the money is not the one who worked hard and earned it. It prevents the creation of a hereditary upper class.
2.) I would start the tax at 15% for 3,000,000 and ramp up progressively to 50%. I would support making allowances for reductions in the tax if some of the estate income is donated to legitimate charitable foundations.

 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Yes we need more! It's absolute evil that we allow 2% of US citizens to gain their wealth through inherentance.
 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I'm ok with a SMALL portion of state tax. The progressive state tax up to 90% is completely ridiculous in my opinion and as someone else said I think this is definitely class warfare. The government doesn't need more money, they need to use less money. Enabling them to tax MORE gives them reason to spend MORE which makes them less efficient and MORE wasteful. MORE government is BAD. MORE = BAD.

Besides, if I build up a billion dollar empire and worked my ass off so my kids don't have to work, well thats my fucking choice isn't it? I don't care if you think its fair or not, its my money and my family should be able to do with it as they please.

I want to go back to the days where the people actually had control over their lives and lived with some autonomy. I don't understand why everyone wants to give their shit to the government. Or why they want to give Bill Gates shit to the government. All the government is going to do with it is piss away more money, we've had enough of that haven't we?

Perfectly stated and I agree 100%.