What's wrong with near 100% death tax?

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Balt
Someone worked and spent their life earning that money. It is THEIR money and it has already been taxed. No one should tell them how they can and can't pass it on, and it certainly shouldn't be confiscated by the government like it was something 'evil' or illegal that they didn't deserve.

It already gets taxed, there's nothing illegal or unprecedented about that. As someone else mentioned, if people don't want the government getting it, they can always donate it, which is even better.

So, no one yet said much except "please think of the children", nor have they explained why promoting a meritocratic society is such a horrible thing.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that hijacking people's earned money upon their death will produce a meritocracy. Parents with better financial means will still usually send their children to better schools and possibly help them pay for college.

If you want to take away a parent's right to do such things, then perhaps you'd just be happier living under someone like Stalin. Or perhaps you'd just like to see every motivation that a person has for accumulating money disappear. Damn those evil people for earning money and feeling like they should see some benefit from it. Selfish bastards trying to help their kids. :roll:

Great, they should send them to school, and afterwards the kids will succeed or fail based on what they can do.

And nice try, but people don't accumulate wealth just to give it to their kids - notice all the childless rich people.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Balt
Someone worked and spent their life earning that money. It is THEIR money and it has already been taxed. No one should tell them how they can and can't pass it on, and it certainly shouldn't be confiscated by the government like it was something 'evil' or illegal that they didn't deserve.

It already gets taxed, there's nothing illegal or unprecedented about that. As someone else mentioned, if people don't want the government getting it, they can always donate it, which is even better.

So, no one yet said much except "please think of the children", nor have they explained why promoting a meritocratic society is such a horrible thing.

I pointed out the insanity of it all...

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

You pay taxes on what you earn... then, when you spend your already taxed money you pay sales tax on things you buy... and sometimes you pay taxes for simply owning the things you already paid taxes on when you bought them with the money that was taxed when you earned it.

It's psychotic when you think about it.

Income is taxed multiple times. And in many instances, if you imposed a 100% death tax the government would lose out on a perpetual tax stream because the business owned by the dead guy would be liquidated to pay the death tax. Does the government really want a one time pay out over continuous, potentially unlimited stream of revenue?

The whole idea is stupid and self defeating.

Even if the wealth is not a business, the interest will still be taxed in perpetuity and the govenment makes more in the long haul by not taking all the principal of the dead guy. Wealth creates more wealth if managed properly. And the rich pay the most in taxes. A total death tax = killing the goose that laid the golden egg for government revenue.

You didn't point out the insanity, because you read neither the OP nor my reply.

- you can afford to tax the living less
- no one is talking about liquidating businesses. If Paul Allen dies and his shares go to a fund, MS won't cease to exist or produce software.

Yes I did and your response further proves my point...

By your logic the controlling interest in microsoft goes to the government. Think about it for a minute.

Lets take a step back here: we all know this isn't actually ever going to happen, so I'm asking what people think of the idea. Obviously there is a solution to every such problem - politically independent agencies, ignoring microbusinesses with a few employees etc etc.

But really, I've yet to hear anything but "Oh please think of the children"...

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Balt
Someone worked and spent their life earning that money. It is THEIR money and it has already been taxed. No one should tell them how they can and can't pass it on, and it certainly shouldn't be confiscated by the government like it was something 'evil' or illegal that they didn't deserve.

It already gets taxed, there's nothing illegal or unprecedented about that. As someone else mentioned, if people don't want the government getting it, they can always donate it, which is even better.

So, no one yet said much except "please think of the children", nor have they explained why promoting a meritocratic society is such a horrible thing.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that hijacking people's earned money upon their death will produce a meritocracy. Parents with better financial means will still usually send their children to better schools and possibly help them pay for college.

If you want to take away a parent's right to do such things, then perhaps you'd just be happier living under someone like Stalin. Or perhaps you'd just like to see every motivation that a person has for accumulating money disappear. Damn those evil people for earning money and feeling like they should see some benefit from it. Selfish bastards trying to help their kids. :roll:

Great, they should send them to school, and afterwards the kids will succeed or fail based on what they can do.

And nice try, but people don't accumulate wealth just to give it to their kids - notice all the childless rich people.

Like I said earlier, it's not really your business why they choose to accumulate their wealth or what they choose to do with it.

If there are so many childless rich people, then what are you complaining about? Obviously they can't leave it to children they don't have.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Balt
Someone worked and spent their life earning that money. It is THEIR money and it has already been taxed. No one should tell them how they can and can't pass it on, and it certainly shouldn't be confiscated by the government like it was something 'evil' or illegal that they didn't deserve.

It already gets taxed, there's nothing illegal or unprecedented about that. As someone else mentioned, if people don't want the government getting it, they can always donate it, which is even better.

So, no one yet said much except "please think of the children", nor have they explained why promoting a meritocratic society is such a horrible thing.

I pointed out the insanity of it all...

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

You pay taxes on what you earn... then, when you spend your already taxed money you pay sales tax on things you buy... and sometimes you pay taxes for simply owning the things you already paid taxes on when you bought them with the money that was taxed when you earned it.

It's psychotic when you think about it.

Income is taxed multiple times. And in many instances, if you imposed a 100% death tax the government would lose out on a perpetual tax stream because the business owned by the dead guy would be liquidated to pay the death tax. Does the government really want a one time pay out over continuous, potentially unlimited stream of revenue?

The whole idea is stupid and self defeating.

Even if the wealth is not a business, the interest will still be taxed in perpetuity and the govenment makes more in the long haul by not taking all the principal of the dead guy. Wealth creates more wealth if managed properly. And the rich pay the most in taxes. A total death tax = killing the goose that laid the golden egg for government revenue.

You didn't point out the insanity, because you read neither the OP nor my reply.

- you can afford to tax the living less
- no one is talking about liquidating businesses. If Paul Allen dies and his shares go to a fund, MS won't cease to exist or produce software.

Yes I did and your response further proves my point...

By your logic the controlling interest in microsoft goes to the government. Think about it for a minute.

Lets take a step back here: we all know this isn't actually ever going to happen, so I'm asking what people think of the idea. Obviously there is a solution to every such problem - politically independent agencies, ignoring microbusinesses with a few employees etc etc.

But really, I've yet to hear "Oh please think of the children"...

Why are you waiting for that answer?

Don't look for that response from me. It's not about the children. Anyone who has read any books know that the wealth cycle in the US goes like this:

1st Gen builds the business... makes a small mint and passes in on to the kids.
2nd Gen coasts through...
The grand kids get nothing.

But none of that changes my original point which is: You pay taxes on what you earn... then, when you spend your already taxed money you pay sales tax on things you buy... and sometimes you pay taxes for simply owning the things you already paid taxes on when you bought them with the money that was taxed when you earned it.

If the government wants to take it all in the end they should leave it alone while we're alive. If they're going to tax it multiple times while we're alive they have no business taking it when we're dead.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Balt
Someone worked and spent their life earning that money. It is THEIR money and it has already been taxed. No one should tell them how they can and can't pass it on, and it certainly shouldn't be confiscated by the government like it was something 'evil' or illegal that they didn't deserve.

It already gets taxed, there's nothing illegal or unprecedented about that. As someone else mentioned, if people don't want the government getting it, they can always donate it, which is even better.

So, no one yet said much except "please think of the children", nor have they explained why promoting a meritocratic society is such a horrible thing.

I pointed out the insanity of it all...

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

You pay taxes on what you earn... then, when you spend your already taxed money you pay sales tax on things you buy... and sometimes you pay taxes for simply owning the things you already paid taxes on when you bought them with the money that was taxed when you earned it.

It's psychotic when you think about it.

Income is taxed multiple times. And in many instances, if you imposed a 100% death tax the government would lose out on a perpetual tax stream because the business owned by the dead guy would be liquidated to pay the death tax. Does the government really want a one time pay out over continuous, potentially unlimited stream of revenue?

The whole idea is stupid and self defeating.

Even if the wealth is not a business, the interest will still be taxed in perpetuity and the govenment makes more in the long haul by not taking all the principal of the dead guy. Wealth creates more wealth if managed properly. And the rich pay the most in taxes. A total death tax = killing the goose that laid the golden egg for government revenue.

You didn't point out the insanity, because you read neither the OP nor my reply.

- you can afford to tax the living less
- no one is talking about liquidating businesses. If Paul Allen dies and his shares go to a fund, MS won't cease to exist or produce software.

Yes I did and your response further proves my point...

By your logic the controlling interest in microsoft goes to the government. Think about it for a minute.

Lets take a step back here: we all know this isn't actually ever going to happen, so I'm asking what people think of the idea. Obviously there is a solution to every such problem - politically independent agencies, ignoring microbusinesses with a few employees etc etc.

But really, I've yet to hear "Oh please think of the children"...

Why are you waiting for that answer?

Don't look for that response from me. It's not about the children. Anyone who has read any books know that the wealth cycle in the US goes like this:

1st Gen builds the business... makes a small mint and passes in on to the kids.
2nd Gen coasts through...
The grand kids get nothing.

But none of that changes my original point which is: You pay taxes on what you earn... then, when you spend your already taxed money you pay sales tax on things you buy... and sometimes you pay taxes for simply owning the things you already paid taxes on when you bought them with the money that was taxed when you earned it.

If the government wants to take it all in the end they should leave it alone while we're alive. If they're going to tax it multiple times while we're alive they have no business taking it when we're dead.

Sorry, its 4+am on this coast: What I meant is "I have yet to hear anything OTHER than 'blah blah blah' children"

But yes, like I said in my OP taxes while you're alive should decrease. Be completely wiped out? Well, depends on what is revenue-neutral.

 

[compuwiz1]

Martin, please put the crack pipe down! WFT are you thinking?

Can you imagine the litigation over such a policy? :shocked:

EVERYBODY STOP! Don't buy into this. Bad, very bad idea!

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Martin

Apart from some minor exceptions (for example, leaving a dwelling and some money to your spouse), why shouldn't you be taxed when you die? You certainly don't need the money, your children will succeed or fail based on their own merits, and you'd be able to enjoy much lower tax rates while you're still alive.

The only losers would be the rich who can't make it on their own but rely on their family's wealth. And I can't see that as a bad thing really...

Since when does the government get to take everything you own? They already taxed you on it once. Besides, people will find ways to get around this. Maybe if you had a penny to your name and a family, you might feel different.

So what do we do with family farms? Give them to the government instead of the children that worked on it their entire life? How about a business that has been in the family for 3 generations, the government should just get it too? Oh, that house that's been in your family for 100 years...that's now property of the government.

 

[ProfJohn]

Why does dying give the government the right to come and take everything you have worked for your entire life?

I am single with no kids; let?s say I have a million dollars in the bank for my planned retirement trip around the world.
Now on the way home from work tomorrow I get in a car crash and die, under your plan the government shows up and says ?thanks? when it takes all MY money?

Why should that money go to the government instead of my nieces and nephews or other family members?

How about this plan Martin, let?s just give the government ALL our money ALL the time, and then let them give us what ever it is we need to live.

BTW: We pay taxes in order to get the benefits the government provides, once you are dead you no longer gain any benefit from your taxes, therefore the government should not be able to take ANY of your money.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Martin

Apart from some minor exceptions (for example, leaving a dwelling and some money to your spouse), why shouldn't you be taxed when you die? You certainly don't need the money, your children will succeed or fail based on their own merits, and you'd be able to enjoy much lower tax rates while you're still alive.

The only losers would be the rich who can't make it on their own but rely on their family's wealth. And I can't see that as a bad thing really...

Simple. Because it is PRIVATE PROPERTY. If you have heirs they should get it. If taxed again, as it is now, it is double taxation.

the whole idea of "you certainly do not need the money" misses the point. The point is that your wealth is not property of the government. It belongs first and formost to whom you designate.

The real losers would not be the rich, they have many ways to divest themselves of the money before death to insure their heirs get it. They have the legal advice necessary to know what to do.

It is the ignorance constantly spewed by the left and their minions in the media who try to convince the working people of the country otherwise. Ever notice how many of these same people who are spouting this rhetoric are rich themselves and their children are well off and they won't truly be subject to the death tax?

You know why they want you to be don't you? So your more reliant on the government. After all, if they can take your inheritance its all the more harder for you to get ahead.

 

[Shortass]

This topic should never have reached this many posts. I'm going to add one because I'm bored.

WHAT A HORRIBLE IDEA.

What's so bad about high taxes anyway? Higher taxes = higher services, right? Oh, wait, I forgot that most people are SO concerned about that extra 4% of their money that they had planned for their once every year vacation to the Bahamas and Italy. Instead, they'd rather laugh at all the high school graduates who can't afford college because the federal government can't really help them out all that much because nobody's willing to help the next generation. Thanks guys, I'm SO GRATEFUL.

EDIT: More on topic, this would only hurt the poor people anyway. Don't you know the rich are extremely capable of hiding their money already? They'd only get better...

 

[Stunt]

Too many loopholes.
Most people would start handing out large sums of money to family members before they die.
Also if they aren't tied down to a job (most people who die have retired) there's nothing stopping them from leaving the country.

I like the idea as most rich kids are given plenty of extra opportunities, but I understand that it just plain wouldn't work.

 

[Shortass]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Too many loopholes.
Most people would start handing out large sums of money to family members before they die.
Also if they aren't tied down to a job (most people who die have retired) there's nothing stopping them from leaving the country.

I like the idea as most rich kids are given plenty of extra opportunities, but I understand that it just plain wouldn't work.

Doesn't living in Canada give you extra opportunities from, say, living in Antarctica? Or maybe Madagascar? Orrrrrrr North Korea? Orrrrrrrrr I dunno, let's say Iran. We should tax you for living in a stable country with a decent economy and decent social freedoms...right?

(I only said Madagascar cause it's on the Risk map and I love it).

 

[Mardeth]

Stupid...

 

[jrenz]

Well on the other hand, it WOULD keep the poor inner-city black folk down...

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
100% death tax.

So a guy starts a business... makes some money... grows the business... employs lots of people... makes more money, paying taxes all the way... then when he dies, his family gets nothing, his business is liquidated, his employees lose their jobs... How is this good?

It doesn't even have to be a business. A person can work hard and save up $1 mil and then when he dies, his kids won't see the fruit of his labor. It will go to the government so they can donate it to Israel and Iraq.

That and the basic demogogery (sp) that comes from those who are jealous of people who made some money in their time on earth. God forbid their kids should have any kind of a head start in life.

Pension funds manage enormous amounts of wealth, so obviously there's no need for liquidation and things like that.

But I'm afraid the only demagoguery comes from the "oh, what will my special little precious children do without inheritance" crowd. It's not jealousy - some people just like the idea of a meritocracy.

Some people despise your line of thinking.

If I can make more money than you, and my children can be better off than yours, then great, I have succeeded. WTF should they have to work if I can provide for them and make them rich??? I am being completely serious. There is a need for taxes but the death tax is 1: double taxation, 2: exorbitant.

 

[dmcowen674]

Why all this alk of 100% tax after you die?

They are working on 100% tax for the living.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Why all this alk of 100% tax after you die?

They are working on 100% tax for the living.

but they won't call it a tax.

They will tell us that what we take home is what the government pays you that it willingly gives up to you out of its generosity. After all, after they take over our medical system it only makes sense they take over all forms of income to make it fair. This also circumvents taxing income as no one will have any as everyone is paid from the government. Hence, we all get subsidized according to our needs.

So, politicians, lobbyist, and entertainers, will need to receive the largest percentage as they only have the public's welfare in mind. Somewhere down the list will be the working class.

 

[MadRat]

Screw the man. It was already taxed when made. You heirs should be able to take it without all that harrassment. Uncle sam will just piss it away anyhow.

 

[Genx87]

I guess the question I pose back is what right does the public have for property earned by a private individual?

I dont see who the govt has any more rights to said property than the people the former owner wants to hand down the property to.

 

[Genx87]

btw I am going to echo a sentiment many are already saying. The govt will then have a tool to collect wealth itself.

Think about this for a moment. A very rich person dies, their house in the hamptons goes to the govt. Instead of auctioning it off the political classes decides to use it for govt use. Now instead of it going back into the wilds it has become state property for greedy politicians to use.

Then you also have the issue of ownership of private business. Within a generation you would have all the private business's owned by the govt.

Sounds like a socialist diaster if you ask me.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I see it as a tax on unearned wealth more than anything.

Exactly. You are getting a windfall of "Free Money" when you inherit from your family. You did NOTHING to earn it. As far as I'm concerned, it should be taxed at double the rate that earned income is taxed at. Even after paying huge taxes, you are still in effect getting "Free Money".

 

[Pacemaker]

I have several problems with a 100% or near 100% death tax rate. First, it doesn't inspire people to work hard. If you make it so you can't pass on a reasonable amount of wealth to your next of kin why would you spend so much time earning it? You would work just hard enough to retire when you wanted to and then stop working.

Secondly, what happens to that 14 or 15 old year child? Not only did they loose a parent (and probably the only one if they were going to get the money), but now they have to live in a foster home and probably not be able to go to college. How does this help society?

Lastly, people spend most of their lives saving for retirement, but now if they die their life was wasted working and the government sends the family a thank you for the money card. Now the family has to spend money from their pockets to have a funeral.


A question to the original poster, does this 100% include life insurance, because if it doesn't why not spend all your wealth on life insurance so it does get passed on, and if it does why would you bother with life insurance at all?

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
100% death tax.

So a guy starts a business... makes some money... grows the business... employs lots of people... makes more money, paying taxes all the way... then when he dies, his family gets nothing, his business is liquidated, his employees lose their jobs... How is this good?

It doesn't even have to be a business. A person can work hard and save up $1 mil and then when he dies, his kids won't see the fruit of his labor. It will go to the government so they can donate it to Israel and Iraq.

That and the basic demogogery (sp) that comes from those who are jealous of people who made some money in their time on earth. God forbid their kids should have any kind of a head start in life.

Pension funds manage enormous amounts of wealth, so obviously there's no need for liquidation and things like that.

But I'm afraid the only demagoguery comes from the "oh, what will my special little precious children do without inheritance" crowd. It's not jealousy - some people just like the idea of a meritocracy.

Someone worked and spent their life earning that money. It is THEIR money and it has already been taxed. No one should tell them how they can and can't pass it on, and it certainly shouldn't be confiscated by the government like it was something 'evil' or illegal that they didn't deserve.

If parents decide they want their children to go it alone, they can decide to leave it to charity. If they decide they want to leave it to their kids and family, then they should be able to and everyone else should mind their own f'ing business.

because the lazy socialists wish to support their welfare state so they have to "rob from the not lazy and give to the lazy". if you want a 100% death tax, then you need to switch to a sales tax only form of taxation.

 

[Sunner]

Sounds like a horrible idea to me.
I don't give a crap if someone decides that their money should go to their significant other, their children, the local zoo, or is spent on hookers for some poor homeless guy, it was their money when they lived, and they get to decide where it goes after the die, end of.

Here in Sweden we recently abolished such a tax, though it wasn't 100%(not even our politicians are that insane), to the joy of most people.

 

[K1052]

I work in a multi-generational family business so you can guess what I think of your idea.

My family has worked hard over the last 100 years and three generations to build it and I'll be damned if the government or other entity is going to take it from us when the current shareholders die. If such a law was passed I'd totally support liquidating the business and sending the money overseas where the US gov can't touch it.

The idea, beyond it being outright theft from citizens, is an economic head shot. Money will flee this country like it's going out of style. You think anyone who has managed to accumulate much wealth is going to sit idly by and let the government scoop it all up after their death, possibly leaving loved ones destitute? Of course not, they will try to get it out of the US by whatever means possible.