• 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.

POLL: When do you think the estate tax should kick in, if ever?

I

Infohawk

Lifer
Personally, I don't think inheritance is a good idea because I think people should only get money when they earn it. Also, it creates aristocracies and situations like the HIlton twins who don't have to ever work. Did you know the Founding Fathers supported the estate tax because they didn't want to reproduce English-style dynasties?

I think family homes could be an exception (but not vacation homes).
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Personally, I don't think inheritance is a good idea because I think people should only get money when they earn it.
Click to expand...

Ok, in that case end welfare, and all of government. Sounds like a good tradeoff to me.

 
Seven views but only three votes. Interesting. People don't have opinions when it comes to the inheritance tax? Or they don't know what it is? :-/
 
My answer (500 000$) is dependent on the exceptions of family homes and family-operated farms and business under a certain (fairly large) size.
 
I don't think it's socialist to prevent these transfers of wealth. Capitalism is about markets and such. You can still own your own property. We place limits on what you can do with property all the time (can't give money to terror organizations; can't bribe an official), this is just another one.
 
Originally posted by: Kibbo
My answer (500 000$) is dependent on the exceptions of family homes and family-operated farms and business under a certain (fairly large) size.
Click to expand...


I agree with family homes. However, the conversatives always harp about family farms but they've never been able to show that a single family farm has been put out of business because of the inheritance tax! But heck if it were actually an issue I'd agree.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
I don't think it's socialist to prevent these transfers of wealth. Capitalism is about markets and such. You can still own your own property. We place limits on what you can do with property all the time (can't give money to terror organizations; can't bribe an official), this is just another one.
Click to expand...

Ok, I agree with your statement that no one should get money unless they earn it. Therefore, under that premise the entire government should be eliminated, including welfare. I'm willing to go for that.

 
Personally, I don't think inheritance is a good idea because I think people should only get money when they earn it.
Click to expand...

Do you apply this same logic to social spending for the poor?
 
It's a good point about the poor but I contend they don't actually get cash, stocks, or bonds from anyone. They get services in some cases.

But you know what? I would favor a drastic reduction of taxes if we had a system where people actually had to earn their money (unlike the Hiltons or GWB).
 
It's a good point about the poor but I contend they don't actually get cash, stocks, or bonds from anyone. They get services in some cases.

But you know what? I would favor a drastic reduction of taxes if we had a system where people actually had to earn their money (unlike the Hiltons or GWB).
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Another question for you though, do you think there ought to be an upper threshold on the number of times a given cash stream can be taxed? For example, let's say we have a hypothetical Mr. Rich, a small business owner. Mr. Rich sells a good to you, for which sales tax is paid. The revenue from that sale is taxed as income to his business, which is taxed. Some of that revenue is used to purchase additional goods for sale, which are taxed again (sales, tariffs, and excise taxes). Some of the revenue he takes as salary which he pays income tax, payroll tax, and perhaps alternative minimum tax on. Some of that income he invests, which he pays capital gains, on and income taxes on dividends (which have already been double or triple-taxed as it is). Then he dies, and the some money gets taxed yet again. I'm sure you can add a few more tax layers if you cared to. At what point can we say a given dollar has been taxed enough?
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
It's a good point about the poor but I contend they don't actually get cash, stocks, or bonds from anyone. They get services in some cases.

But you know what? I would favor a drastic reduction of taxes if we had a system where people actually had to earn their money (unlike the Hiltons or GWB).
Click to expand...

So is marrying into it considered earning it? Kerry had some money, but it's a drop in the bucket now.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Infohawk
It's a good point about the poor but I contend they don't actually get cash, stocks, or bonds from anyone. They get services in some cases.

But you know what? I would favor a drastic reduction of taxes if we had a system where people actually had to earn their money (unlike the Hiltons or GWB).
Click to expand...

So is marrying into it considered earning it? Kerry had some money, but it's a drop in the bucket now.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think marrying into money isn't earning it. Kerry doesn't deserve Heinz's money-- and neither did she since she's just an heir to a fortune too. I think if we had a good system you would have each person starting from scratch at their birth. The kinds of situations where you would marry into an ultra-rich family would be smaller. I think Kerry is pretty much a privileged brat just like GWB (except GWB is worse IMO. Also, Kerry supports policies that would not be to his benefit so that mitigates his spoiled aspect).
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
Personally, I don't think inheritance is a good idea because I think people should only get money when they earn it.
Click to expand...

Do you apply this same logic to social spending for the poor?
Click to expand...

His logic goes much further than that. You see, he has condemned transfers of wealth to individuals, but that is precisely what occurs when the government pays government "employees." When the government pays these "employees" all that is occuring is a transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to the "employees." Hence, government "employees" do not really earn anything.

Therefore, under his premise the government would be able to still pass laws but since transfers of wealth are not allowed there would be no entity to enforce them. Government would simply cease to exist. While I do not believe that inheritance taxes have any moral footing, I would certainly be willing to accept inheritance taxes if it means that the entire government would be dismantled at the same time.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
It's a good point about the poor but I contend they don't actually get cash, stocks, or bonds from anyone. They get services in some cases.

But you know what? I would favor a drastic reduction of taxes if we had a system where people actually had to earn their money (unlike the Hiltons or GWB).
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Another question for you though, do you think there ought to be an upper threshold on the number of times a given cash stream can be taxed? For example, let's say we have a hypothetical Mr. Rich, a small business owner. Mr. Rich sells a good to you, for which sales tax is paid. The revenue from that sale is taxed as income to his business, which is taxed. Some of that revenue is used to purchase additional goods for sale, which are taxed again (sales, tariffs, and excise taxes). Some of the revenue he takes as salary which he pays income tax, payroll tax, and perhaps alternative minimum tax on. Some of that income he invests, which he pays capital gains, on and income taxes on dividends (which have already been double or triple-taxed as it is). Then he dies, and the some money gets taxed yet again. I'm sure you can add a few more tax layers if you cared to. At what point can we say a given dollar has been taxed enough?
Click to expand...

Yeah I generally favor higher-taxes but I've never seen the point of double-taxing corporations. As long as the shareholder is taxed, the corporation doesn't need to be taxed. If you want more taxes, tax the shareholder more.
 
Capitalism isn't about earning money in the sense you guys seem to be implying, it's about acquiring money by exploiting advantages you have, honestly and lawfully through free exchanges where both parties feel they are better off for making the exchange. Some people acquire money through working, of those that do some work harder for it than others, some win it, some play for it, some have it given to them by folks of their own free will. And whether you judge any of these ways to be fair or not is irrelevant, Capitalism in an amoral machine, and these are all valid ways to acquire money within that machine. Taxes, although an infringement on this, are a necessity to sustain government. But they should be levied as just that, only as necessary, and not as a tool of government to attempt to legislate any sort of moral equality within the system. That is the very essence of Socialism.
 
Yeah I generally favor higher-taxes but I've never seen the point of double-taxing corporations. As long as the shareholder is taxed, the corporation doesn't need to be taxed. If you want more taxes, tax the shareholder more.
Click to expand...

Thank you for being intellectually consistent. I think that bothers me more about the typical thinking of both liberals and conservatives than the actual policies they support.
 
I think that inheritence is a form of property rights for dead people. Why should dead people have any property rights? I think that in a way, a death tax isn't even a tax. What happens when you die is that all your stuff ceases to belong to anybody at the moment of your death. After that, the property would either go to the state or it would go to the first squatter that could claim it.

While I do not believe that inheritance taxes have any moral footing
Click to expand...
Why not?
 
As much as I'm considered a leftist by many here, I think that a number greater than $2M would be desirable, maybe something on the order of $10-20M per beneficiary. I'm not opposed to wealth per se, or the right of inheritance. I am, however, opposed to concentration of wealth rates that exceed the creation of wealth rates, and to the inheritance of great economic and political power by those who have done nothing to earn it. That concentration has proceeded at a tremendous rate over the last 20 years, the top 1% share having doubled in that period of time, from 10% to 20 %, with a disproportionate part of that going to those few at the very, very top... it's not rocket science to figure out what happens to the rest of us and our descendants if that trend is allowed to continue.

I also believe that at some point, I'm not really sure where, that the situation should become confiscatory- even taking half of a $20B inheritance won't achieve the desired results of greater equality of opportunity, and distribution of power along reasonable lines... As the situation now stands, buying politicians is cheaper than paying fair taxes for those of tremendous wealth, which skews our entire system in their favor...

At some point or another, we have to answer the question as to what better expresses the American dream- a thousand billionaires, or a million millionaires, and attempt to achieve the goal using tax policy as a tool...

Let the uber-right name callling begin...
 
What would happen to the money which couldn't be inherited ...assuming someone is highly successful in their lifetime, and please don't say it is put into government as I would laugh.
 
This would be a non-issue if all income were taxed the same, which I feel it should be. Like I said before, there are many valid ways to acquire money, and arbitrarily deciding one way or amount deserves to be taxed differently than another is just that, arbitrary. 20% on all personal income over $20,000 annually would be the only tax the federal government could levy if I had my way. It'd force the federal government to rope in its spending and leave everything else to the local government where it should be and where the average person still at least has a chance to have his voice heard.
 
While I agree that the dynasty approach doesn't do much for social justice, how does scooping up all of the leftovers from someone's newly deceased family speak to justice? If anything, it needs to be a percentage, with a minimum allowance that doesn't get taxed ($250,000 or so). Or, have a graduated system like for income tax. Or, just add inheritance to the person's income so it gets taxed there.
 
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
This would be a non-issue if all income were taxed the same, which I feel it should be. Like I said before, there are many valid ways to acquire money, and arbitrarily deciding one way or amount deserves to be taxed differently than another is just that, arbitrary. 20% on all personal income over $20,000 annually would be the only tax the federal government could levy if I had my way. It'd force the federal government to rope in its spending and leave everything else to the local government where it should be and where the average person still at least has a chance to have his voice heard.
Click to expand...


Isn't it an abritrary number when they set the minimum wage? The politicians get together and come up with an arbitrary number, which is not enough for those people to live on. What basis do they use for that? Why should it be any different for income taxes and inheritance taxes?


 
Originally posted by: bozack
What would happen to the money which couldn't be inherited ...assuming someone is highly successful in their lifetime, and please don't say it is put into government as I would laugh.
Click to expand...

Of course it would, at least as an intermediary. It could pay for highways, defense, healthcare, etc.
 
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Capitalism isn't about earning money in the sense you guys seem to be implying, it's about acquiring money by exploiting advantages you have, honestly and lawfully through free exchanges where both parties feel they are better off for making the exchange. Some people acquire money through working, of those that do some work harder for it than others, some win it, some play for it, some have it given to them by folks of their own free will. And whether you judge any of these ways to be fair or not is irrelevant, Capitalism in an amoral machine, and these are all valid ways to acquire money within that machine. Taxes, although an infringement on this, are a necessity to sustain government. But they should be levied as just that, only as necessary, and not as a tool of government to attempt to legislate any sort of moral equality within the system. That is the very essence of Socialism.
Click to expand...


Pure capitalism also involves letting monopolies go wild. We've always limited capitalism in one way or another. The founders liked meritocracy, as opposed to aristocracy. Most people like the idea that you get what you deserve. The concept of fairness comes into play with these ideas. If that's socialism than the US has been socialist for a very long time.
 
I think estate tax is the worst idea ever--absolutely gross and disgusting that one could conceive that it is ever "right".

The government has no right to stick their fat socialist hands into the pot and steal from estates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top