Please explain why the death/estate tax is fair.

[Martin]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Martin
Did you know most non-megalomaniac people do things for reasons other than to try and build dynasties that last 1000 years?

You mean like work their way up from a low-class beginning and become successful enough to be secure in the knowledge that their children won't have to suffer financially? Yeah, I know a lot of people who have done that, and many more who would like to have the chance to do that. Divesting them of all of the assets they earned over a lifetime doesn't afford them such opportunity, forget about dynasties.

See, its a difference of definitions. Your definition of people ensuring their children will do alright is leaving them as much money as possible, whereas my definition is raising well-adjusted children that know how to deal with and succeed in the world.

So you see, using my definition, having a 100% death tax (or rather 99.something%: 100% minus a small exception for education and a few grand on top) wouldn't prevent people from ensuring their children do well.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

3.) Set a Federal 2% flat tax on all exported goods. Any goods exported out of the country will be taxed. No exceptions.

ain't gonna happen:

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Martin
Did you know most non-megalomaniac people do things for reasons other than to try and build dynasties that last 1000 years?

You mean like work their way up from a low-class beginning and become successful enough to be secure in the knowledge that their children won't have to suffer financially? Yeah, I know a lot of people who have done that, and many more who would like to have the chance to do that. Divesting them of all of the assets they earned over a lifetime doesn't afford them such opportunity, forget about dynasties.

See, its a difference of definitions. Your definition of people ensuring their children will do alright is leaving them as much money as possible, whereas my definition is raising well-adjusted children that know how to deal with and succeed in the world.

So you see, using my definition, having a 100% death tax (or rather 99.something%: 100% minus a small exception for education and a few grand on top) wouldn't prevent people from ensuring their children do well.

And when a man buys a tract of land and has a home built, and wants to pass it to his children, they should have to buy it at market price from the government if they want to keep it? What if the man built the home with his own hands? The government should get it?

What if a man has a wealth of personal belongings with sentimental value to his family. Upon his death, if the family can't afford to somehow buy these items, the government gets all of it, or it goes to auction??

What if a man buys a work of art. Upon his death, the government gets the artwork unless the heirs can pay for it...again??

None of this sounds ridiculous to you?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Martin
Did you know most non-megalomaniac people do things for reasons other than to try and build dynasties that last 1000 years?

You mean like work their way up from a low-class beginning and become successful enough to be secure in the knowledge that their children won't have to suffer financially? Yeah, I know a lot of people who have done that, and many more who would like to have the chance to do that. Divesting them of all of the assets they earned over a lifetime doesn't afford them such opportunity, forget about dynasties.

See, its a difference of definitions. Your definition of people ensuring their children will do alright is leaving them as much money as possible, whereas my definition is raising well-adjusted children that know how to deal with and succeed in the world.

So you see, using my definition, having a 100% death tax (or rather 99.something%: 100% minus a small exception for education and a few grand on top) wouldn't prevent people from ensuring their children do well.

And when a man buys a tract of land and has a home built, and wants to pass it to his children, they should have to buy it at market price from the government if they want to keep it? What if the man built the home with his own hands? The government should get it?

What if a man has a wealth of personal belongings with sentimental value to his family. Upon his death, if the family can't afford to somehow buy these items, the government gets all of it, or it goes to auction??

What if a man buys a work of art. Upon his death, the government gets the artwork unless the heirs can pay for it...again??

None of this sounds ridiculous to you?

Which part? Man buys crap, man ceases to exist, crap goes to whoever wants to pay for it.

You know what actually sounds ridiculous to me? People who think of their parents/grandparents property as their own and spend time thinking what kind of a cut they'll get. Its amazing how little self-respect have when you wave a few fucking dollars in front of their face.

 

[zephyrprime]

I think the death tax is the fairest tax because dead people should have no property rights.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

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!"

If you live in an aristocratic society rather than our meritocracy you won't have the opportunity to build a $1 bil company.

What have Bill Gates heirs done/contributed to be able to live off Bill's genius for the rest of time?

What have we done to be able to take the fruits of his genius?

paid thousands of dollars for his products. Provided the law and structure that allowed him to market his good. Provided him property rights and the existence of the corporation. Etc.

 

[miketheidiot]

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.

You like to sodomize infants. Its ok if you can't admit it, its still true.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not know where this came from, but is not tolerable.

You get a two week initial handout and more may be added after cosultation with the Moderator staff.

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
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.

what has a separate legal entity done do deserve the gift of my inheritance simply because my sperm created him?

 

[miketheidiot]

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.

thats about 25% of it, maybe 50%

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Martin
At one of the earlier threads, I believe I was the only that thought 100% death tax to be an excellent idea.

Why? Simply because I think a meritocracy is a very good idea, and that a two-way meritocracy to be an even better one. A society that gives everyone opportunities to develop and fulfill their potential and get a place on the socio-economic ladder that is consistent with their contributions.

In addition to making our society fairer and more meritocratic, removing inheritances would also means you would be taxed at a far smaller rate while you're alive and might even encourage parents to raise better children.

So right now around 1% of estates are subject estate tax, and the portion they pay ranges from a few percent to about 50%. You propose that 100% of estates are taxed at 100%? Who'd bother working any harder than they have to to live comfortably? Your plan is terrific if you wanted to destroy all innovation and motivation.

Somehow I don't think you've ever done anything innovative or even know such people. Did you know most non-megalomaniac people do things for reasons other than to try and build dynasties that last 1000 years?

Somehow I doubt you have children. If I bust my ass my entire life so that my child and grandchildren can live a little better you call that building a dynasty?

Instead, everything I own should be basically on loan from the state? When I die they reclaim possession? Not in my lifetime comrade.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jonks
-snip-
And when a man buys a tract of land and has a home built, and wants to pass it to his children, they should have to buy it at market price from the government if they want to keep it? What if the man built the home with his own hands? The government should get it?

What if a man has a wealth of personal belongings with sentimental value to his family. Upon his death, if the family can't afford to somehow buy these items, the government gets all of it, or it goes to auction??

What if a man buys a work of art. Upon his death, the government gets the artwork unless the heirs can pay for it...again??

None of this sounds ridiculous to you?

I suppose it does sounds a bit ridiculous, but mostly because that's not how the estate tax works.

Ok, first read this:

Every American gets an automatic unified tax credit against federal Estate and Gift taxes of $780,800 in 2006--2008 which is equivalent to transferring $2 million tax-free to your heirs. And, if you are married, your spouse (also a U.S. citizen) has the same exemption credit, so that you can, as a couple, give a full $4 million to your heirs free of Estate Tax.

Is that enough info?

Or would you like me to detail apparent errors of you understanding as explained above in the examples you provided? (I'm not being a smart@ss - serious question.)

I just don't see how anybody can reasonably claim $4M tax-free is somehow unfair.

Fern

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Martin
At one of the earlier threads, I believe I was the only that thought 100% death tax to be an excellent idea.

Why? Simply because I think a meritocracy is a very good idea, and that a two-way meritocracy to be an even better one. A society that gives everyone opportunities to develop and fulfill their potential and get a place on the socio-economic ladder that is consistent with their contributions.

In addition to making our society fairer and more meritocratic, removing inheritances would also means you would be taxed at a far smaller rate while you're alive and might even encourage parents to raise better children.

So right now around 1% of estates are subject estate tax, and the portion they pay ranges from a few percent to about 50%. You propose that 100% of estates are taxed at 100%? Who'd bother working any harder than they have to to live comfortably? Your plan is terrific if you wanted to destroy all innovation and motivation.

Somehow I don't think you've ever done anything innovative or even know such people. Did you know most non-megalomaniac people do things for reasons other than to try and build dynasties that last 1000 years?

Somehow I doubt you have children. If I bust my ass my entire life so that my child and grandchildren can live a little better you call that building a dynasty?

Instead, everything I own should be basically on loan from the state? When I die they reclaim possession? Not in my lifetime comrade.

Two million dollars is exempt in one year, are you really going to leave your children with more than Two million? If so, you are trying to build a dynasty.

 

[sandorski]

100% is too excessive IMO. One benefit to acquiring large amounts of Wealth is to secure your Childrens/Family's future. I don't think people would stop becoming very Wealthy if that was taken away, but I think it shouldn't be taken away. Someone mentioned a $4 million exception, that seems reasonable, but I still don't think that above that should be Taxed 100% either. Make it high, but don't get carried away. As for Businesses, allow a Trust Fund that can provide the necessary(if necessary) Capitol to maintain it.

All that said, I think this is a goofy issue that keeps people all filled with angst for no reason. Barring Accidental/Unexpected Death, most Wealthy people know how to disseminate their Wealth to avoid these Taxes.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: jonks
-snip-
And when a man buys a tract of land and has a home built, and wants to pass it to his children, they should have to buy it at market price from the government if they want to keep it? What if the man built the home with his own hands? The government should get it?

What if a man has a wealth of personal belongings with sentimental value to his family. Upon his death, if the family can't afford to somehow buy these items, the government gets all of it, or it goes to auction??

What if a man buys a work of art. Upon his death, the government gets the artwork unless the heirs can pay for it...again??

None of this sounds ridiculous to you?

I suppose it does sounds a bit ridiculous, but mostly because that's not how the estate tax works.

Ok, first read this:

Every American gets an automatic unified tax credit against federal Estate and Gift taxes of $780,800 in 2006--2008 which is equivalent to transferring $2 million tax-free to your heirs. And, if you are married, your spouse (also a U.S. citizen) has the same exemption credit, so that you can, as a couple, give a full $4 million to your heirs free of Estate Tax.

Is that enough info?

Or would you like me to detail apparent errors of you understanding as explained above in the examples you provided? (I'm not being a smart@ss - serious question.)

I just don't see how anybody can reasonably claim $4M tax-free is somehow unfair.

Fern

There are some simple homes in CA and NYC that can easily pass the $2 million threshold.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Martin
At one of the earlier threads, I believe I was the only that thought 100% death tax to be an excellent idea.

Why? Simply because I think a meritocracy is a very good idea, and that a two-way meritocracy to be an even better one. A society that gives everyone opportunities to develop and fulfill their potential and get a place on the socio-economic ladder that is consistent with their contributions.

In addition to making our society fairer and more meritocratic, removing inheritances would also means you would be taxed at a far smaller rate while you're alive and might even encourage parents to raise better children.

So right now around 1% of estates are subject estate tax, and the portion they pay ranges from a few percent to about 50%. You propose that 100% of estates are taxed at 100%? Who'd bother working any harder than they have to to live comfortably? Your plan is terrific if you wanted to destroy all innovation and motivation.

Somehow I don't think you've ever done anything innovative or even know such people. Did you know most non-megalomaniac people do things for reasons other than to try and build dynasties that last 1000 years?

Somehow I doubt you have children. If I bust my ass my entire life so that my child and grandchildren can live a little better you call that building a dynasty?

Instead, everything I own should be basically on loan from the state? When I die they reclaim possession? Not in my lifetime comrade.

Two million dollars is exempt in one year, are you really going to leave your children with more than Two million? If so, you are trying to build a dynasty.

lol $2 million is a dynasty?

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Martin
At one of the earlier threads, I believe I was the only that thought 100% death tax to be an excellent idea.

Why? Simply because I think a meritocracy is a very good idea, and that a two-way meritocracy to be an even better one. A society that gives everyone opportunities to develop and fulfill their potential and get a place on the socio-economic ladder that is consistent with their contributions.

In addition to making our society fairer and more meritocratic, removing inheritances would also means you would be taxed at a far smaller rate while you're alive and might even encourage parents to raise better children.

So right now around 1% of estates are subject estate tax, and the portion they pay ranges from a few percent to about 50%. You propose that 100% of estates are taxed at 100%? Who'd bother working any harder than they have to to live comfortably? Your plan is terrific if you wanted to destroy all innovation and motivation.

Somehow I don't think you've ever done anything innovative or even know such people. Did you know most non-megalomaniac people do things for reasons other than to try and build dynasties that last 1000 years?

Somehow I doubt you have children. If I bust my ass my entire life so that my child and grandchildren can live a little better you call that building a dynasty?

Instead, everything I own should be basically on loan from the state? When I die they reclaim possession? Not in my lifetime comrade.

Two million dollars is exempt in one year, are you really going to leave your children with more than Two million? If so, you are trying to build a dynasty.

lol $2 million is a dynasty?

It is far more than most estates, which are not subject to the estate tax.
And a $2 million home is not a simple home, even here with some of the highest real estate prices in the country.

Your concern for the richest Americans is duly noted.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Martin
At one of the earlier threads, I believe I was the only that thought 100% death tax to be an excellent idea.

Why? Simply because I think a meritocracy is a very good idea, and that a two-way meritocracy to be an even better one. A society that gives everyone opportunities to develop and fulfill their potential and get a place on the socio-economic ladder that is consistent with their contributions.

In addition to making our society fairer and more meritocratic, removing inheritances would also means you would be taxed at a far smaller rate while you're alive and might even encourage parents to raise better children.

So right now around 1% of estates are subject estate tax, and the portion they pay ranges from a few percent to about 50%. You propose that 100% of estates are taxed at 100%? Who'd bother working any harder than they have to to live comfortably? Your plan is terrific if you wanted to destroy all innovation and motivation.

Somehow I don't think you've ever done anything innovative or even know such people. Did you know most non-megalomaniac people do things for reasons other than to try and build dynasties that last 1000 years?

Somehow I doubt you have children. If I bust my ass my entire life so that my child and grandchildren can live a little better you call that building a dynasty?

Instead, everything I own should be basically on loan from the state? When I die they reclaim possession? Not in my lifetime comrade.

Two million dollars is exempt in one year, are you really going to leave your children with more than Two million? If so, you are trying to build a dynasty.

lol $2 million is a dynasty?

It is far more than most estates, which are not subject to the estate tax.
And a $2 million home is not a simple home, even here with some of the highest real estate prices in the country.

Your concern for the richest Americans is duly noted.

Yea, bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Martin
At one of the earlier threads, I believe I was the only that thought 100% death tax to be an excellent idea.

Why? Simply because I think a meritocracy is a very good idea, and that a two-way meritocracy to be an even better one. A society that gives everyone opportunities to develop and fulfill their potential and get a place on the socio-economic ladder that is consistent with their contributions.

In addition to making our society fairer and more meritocratic, removing inheritances would also means you would be taxed at a far smaller rate while you're alive and might even encourage parents to raise better children.

So right now around 1% of estates are subject estate tax, and the portion they pay ranges from a few percent to about 50%. You propose that 100% of estates are taxed at 100%? Who'd bother working any harder than they have to to live comfortably? Your plan is terrific if you wanted to destroy all innovation and motivation.

Somehow I don't think you've ever done anything innovative or even know such people. Did you know most non-megalomaniac people do things for reasons other than to try and build dynasties that last 1000 years?

Somehow I doubt you have children. If I bust my ass my entire life so that my child and grandchildren can live a little better you call that building a dynasty?

Instead, everything I own should be basically on loan from the state? When I die they reclaim possession? Not in my lifetime comrade.

Two million dollars is exempt in one year, are you really going to leave your children with more than Two million? If so, you are trying to build a dynasty.

That is not what he said. He said he thinks the tax should be 100% of 100% of the estates. There are definately guys around here better at math than I am but I am pretty sure that 100% of 100% is everything from everyone.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Martin
At one of the earlier threads, I believe I was the only that thought 100% death tax to be an excellent idea.

Why? Simply because I think a meritocracy is a very good idea, and that a two-way meritocracy to be an even better one. A society that gives everyone opportunities to develop and fulfill their potential and get a place on the socio-economic ladder that is consistent with their contributions.

In addition to making our society fairer and more meritocratic, removing inheritances would also means you would be taxed at a far smaller rate while you're alive and might even encourage parents to raise better children.

So right now around 1% of estates are subject estate tax, and the portion they pay ranges from a few percent to about 50%. You propose that 100% of estates are taxed at 100%? Who'd bother working any harder than they have to to live comfortably? Your plan is terrific if you wanted to destroy all innovation and motivation.

Somehow I don't think you've ever done anything innovative or even know such people. Did you know most non-megalomaniac people do things for reasons other than to try and build dynasties that last 1000 years?

Somehow I doubt you have children. If I bust my ass my entire life so that my child and grandchildren can live a little better you call that building a dynasty?

Instead, everything I own should be basically on loan from the state? When I die they reclaim possession? Not in my lifetime comrade.

Two million dollars is exempt in one year, are you really going to leave your children with more than Two million? If so, you are trying to build a dynasty.

lol $2 million is a dynasty?

It is far more than most estates, which are not subject to the estate tax.
And a $2 million home is not a simple home, even here with some of the highest real estate prices in the country.

Your concern for the richest Americans is duly noted.

Your definition of dynasty and mine are very different comrade.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

The whole point of it is to keep the select few rich that don't want anyone else to get rich and to keep poor poor.

I haven't really read it but from what I understand. If my parents die and the house is transferred to me ($200,000) house, I owe the gov 38000+ dollars? What if I don't have 38000 dollars on me?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

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.

You like to sodomize infants. Its ok if you can't admit it, its still true.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
The whole point of it is to keep the select few rich that don't want anyone else to get rich and to keep poor poor.

I haven't really read it but from what I understand. If my parents die and the house is transferred to me ($200,000) house, I owe the gov 38000+ dollars? What if I don't have 38000 dollars on me?

If their estate was $200,000, there would be NO estate tax (or income etc) at all. If the house was worth $2,000,000, same result.

Fern

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
The whole point of it is to keep the select few rich that don't want anyone else to get rich and to keep poor poor.

I haven't really read it but from what I understand. If my parents die and the house is transferred to me ($200,000) house, I owe the gov 38000+ dollars? What if I don't have 38000 dollars on me?

If their estate was $200,000, there would be NO estate tax (or income etc) at all. If the house was worth $2,000,000, same result.

Fern

Fern is correct. Plus the fact that you get a stepped up basis (see my earlier posts) means that if you sold the house for $200,000 the day after you got it, you also owe no income or capital gains tax-they are permanently forgiven, in effect.

Again, my point is 99% of the rants on this issue are based on emotion and have no relation to what the tax law actually is in this country. But as such, they make great debate fodder for Republicans-why have the pesky facts stand in the way of your arguments?

 

[OokiiNeko]

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

Actually its just the opposite.

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

What this WILL do, is complete the destruction of the middle class.

Since a huge majority of persons who make up corporate boards and corporate officers are from the same relatively small circle, guess whose kids are going to get those 7 figure income corporate jobs? That`s right, their kids, thus insuring their dynastic wealth.

While at the same time, those stocks your parents busted their asses to buy and save for YOUR future, that are now worth some six-figure amount and would give you and your family a nice DEBT FREE head-start. Yeah, that belongs to the Federal govt, because they can manage money SO-O-O much better than you.

 

[Thump553]

OokiiNeko: before posting please get the facts. If you bothered to look even two posts up (mine & Fern's) in thirty seconds you would be a long way to realizing how factually incorrect your stance is-and why. Please take at least a few minutes to educated yourself.

If, once you really understand the estate tax law, you still feel your argument is the least bit valid, please repost it with a valid example/argument why. Otherwise, your statement is a perfect example of the effect of politicians blowing smoke up your *ss and getting people all hot and bothered over a false, non-issue.