What's wrong with near 100% death tax?

[JD50]

Here is a crazy idea.

I worked hard all of my life, paid my taxes, saved up some money to pass on to my kids. Seeing as its MY money, what in the hell gives the government the right to take it? If I want to work hard and save money to pass on to my children, its my right, I've already paid taxes on that money.

This is the dumbest idea that I have ever heard. Martin, I hope that in your will you are giving everything to the government, otherwise you are a gigantic hypocrite.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: 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.

Here's another question: why should dead people have property rights? Since the deceased are no more, it is only due to special recognition under the law that their last will and testement can be carried out effectively giving a non-person property rights.

Inheritence is also anti-thetical to capitalist ideals since people gain unearned income through it.

The most rational thing to do would be to simply destroy all the money. The bank notes (dollars) would be repossessed by the federal reserve since they issue all dollars to begin with and all bank accounts belonging to the deceased would be zeroed out. Existing property could just be distributed through squatters rights if capitalist ideals were taken to their extreme.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: 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.

Here's another question: why should dead people have property rights? Since the deceased are no more, it is only due to special recognition under the law that their last will and testement can be carried out effectively giving a non-person property rights.

Inheritence is also anti-thetical to capitalist ideals since people gain unearned income through it.

The most rational thing to do would be to simply destroy all the money. The bank notes (dollars) would be repossessed by the federal reserve since they issue all dollars to begin with and all bank accounts belonging to the deceased would be zeroed out. Existing property could just be distributed through squatters rights if capitalist ideals were taken to their extreme.

Wow the rest of the world hates us now, I'm sure they will love us when we literally start burning money. And if you Zero'ed out the bank acount, where does the money go? Does the bank keep it? Just because it's 1's and 0's in a computer doesn't mean the bank isn't already using that money for loans. I guess the bank gets a bonus when someone dies.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dahunan
If I EARNED the money and we ARE NOT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY then why does the govt deserve any of it

Tell us why.. really WHY they "DESERVE" any of it?

This IS a socialist country comrade; you just don't see it yet. We've been heading towards it since the 1930's, and I can assure you even GWB helps push it towards the liberal?s eventual goal with high spending and patriot acts. Only a true conservative would alter our course prior to hitting communism.

Originally posted by: Balt
The money was already taxed when it was earned the first time.

Taxing it again just because someone died and wanted to pass it on to their family is lame.

The concept they carry does not allow you to own value, property or money. The government owns you and may decide how it handles your possessions. The choice of if you were government property or not came each time we cast our ballots, and we have failed.

A government that claims to give you what you want, shall also be the government that takes it away.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: 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.

Here's another question: why should dead people have property rights? Since the deceased are no more, it is only due to special recognition under the law that their last will and testement can be carried out effectively giving a non-person property rights.

They only have property rights until their estate is liquidated per their final will.

Inheritence is also anti-thetical to capitalist ideals since people gain unearned income through it.

I fail to see how private wealth transfered to another private entity is anti-thetical to capitalism. Which bases itself on private ownership of wealth and production. Certainly giving the money to the public is anti-capitalist.

The most rational thing to do would be to simply destroy all the money. The bank notes (dollars) would be repossessed by the federal reserve since they issue all dollars to begin with and all bank accounts belonging to the deceased would be zeroed out. Existing property could just be distributed through squatters rights if capitalist ideals were taken to their extreme.

The most rational thing is to leave the status quo.

 

[ProfJohn]

It's a shame he didn't include a poll on this topic.

It looks like everyone thinks this is a bad idea.
How often do we all agree on something?

 

[Genx87]

Left and right seem to be in agreement on this, even Dave seems to agree.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It's a shame he didn't include a poll on this topic.

It looks like everyone thinks this is a bad idea.
How often do we all agree on something?

I disagree. It is not a bad idea, it is a horrible idea. Leaving money to a child or spouse (or whoever the hell you want to) is your decision. I'd hope that my wife and any future children I have would be able to succeed on their own merits, but why not provide them a failsafe?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Left and right seem to be in agreement on this, even Dave seems to agree.

I'm not as fanatical left as you and the resident Republicans claim.

I am fanactical about one thing and one thing only.

The preserving and saving of The United States Of America from the wrath of both the Republicans and Democrats.

It just happens to be that the Republicans have done the most damage ever the last 7 yrs.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
Left and right seem to be in agreement on this, even Dave seems to agree.

I'm not as fanatical left as you and the resident Republicans claim.

I am fanactical about one thing and one thing only.

The preserving and saving of The United States Of America from the wrath of both the Republicans and Democrats.

It just happens to be that the Republicans have done the most damage ever the last 7 yrs.

That is why I singled you out instead of lumping you in with the right or left.

 

[GoPackGo]

Imagine being a child and your parents die...your parents happen to have a bit of money...but since the death tax is 100%, off to the orphanage you go.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Imagine being a child and your parents die...your parents happen to have a bit of money...but since the death tax is 100%, off to the orphanage you go.

That's the way it is now so what's the difference?

 

[AnitaPeterson]

100% death tax?

They can't even revamp copyright laws, so that the artistic creation would become public domain at the death of the artist...

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: zephyrprimeThey only have property rights until their estate is liquidated per their final will.

So you admit that they have property rights after death? Why not let them keep property rights for eternity? Why should they have property rights for a while after death but not continously? What's the difference? Maybe people should be able to vote posthumously also but only for one more election after their death?

I fail to see how private wealth transfered to another private entity is anti-thetical to capitalism. Which bases itself on private ownership of wealth and production. Certainly giving the money to the public is anti-capitalist.

You're right, I was going over the edge when I said it was antithetical. But why is an inheritence given a special status? Why isn't it the same as any other form of income?

 

[jman19]

My family > some politicians who have a limited concept, at best, of how to spend money wisely.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
100% death tax?

They can't even revamp copyright laws, so that the artistic creation would become public domain at the death of the artist...

Public Domain is dead.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: zephyrprimeThey only have property rights until their estate is liquidated per their final will.

So you admit that they have property rights after death? Why not let them keep property rights for eternity? Why should they have property rights for a while after death but not continously? What's the difference? Maybe people should be able to vote posthumously also but only for one more election after their death?

I fail to see how private wealth transfered to another private entity is anti-thetical to capitalism. Which bases itself on private ownership of wealth and production. Certainly giving the money to the public is anti-capitalist.

You're right, I was going over the edge when I said it was antithetical. But why is an inheritence given a special status? Why isn't it the same as any other form of income?

I'd say because it isnt like any other transaction. It is initiated by a death and most estates pass onto the survivors of the deceased. It is more or less in a no mans land because the public doesnt have rights to the assets and not many people think assets earned and passed onto loved ones should be taxed as regular income.

I personally wouldnt have a problem with taxing it at the capital gains rate when it is sold by the loved ones. Meaning if my fathers house he built for 250,000 15 years ago passes onto me and sells for the market price of 1.3 million. I pay capital gains on the 1.3-250,000-other expenses.

Edit: I also think there is a lot of simplicity involved. For instance on my house situation. There is a market value of 1.3 million but how many people would be able to pinpoint the base cost of the asset? It gets into a complicated situation that would likely cost more to rectify than simply taking a fair market value, putting s tax free ceiling on it, and then taxing the rest at a fixed rate. Plus you have the emotion of losing a loved one, who wants to dig through records someties decades old to determine what taxes need to be paid.

 

[spittledip]

If someone earned the money, it should be their right to see who gets it when they die. Why should the govt get the money? I am not asking what they could use it for, I am asking what claim do they haveto it? Why should the govt have more of a claim on what to do with the money than the person who actually earned it? That is some scary thinking.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: spittledip
If someone earned the money, it should be their right to see who gets it when they die. Why should the govt get the money? I am not asking what they could use it for, I am asking what claim do they haveto it? Why should the govt have more of a claim on what to do with the money than the person who actually earned it? That is some scary thinking.

You must be new.

The Supreme Court ruled that there is no longer any private ownership in the U.S.

(Eminent Domain ruling, look it up).

It goes for all citizens money too except for Indians and Politicians of course.

 

[Vic]

My ideal tax system would be little-to-no taxes other than basic use fees, property taxes to stimulate highest-and-best use, and sky-high estate taxes (you enter with nothing, you leave with nothing IMO). I am totally and completely opposed to the idea and existence of Old Money (assets is wealth, only socialist fools think income is wealth). However, I do understand that 100% estate taxes creates some significant social problems that would complicate its implementation. For example, surviving spouses, family businesses, farms, etc. would all be unnecessarily harmed. Due to the law of unintended consequences, the end result would be increased corporatization of assets in order to shelter them from the death (and subsequent loss due to 100% taxation) of any single individual. That last sentence should answer the OP's question.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Imagine being a child and your parents die...your parents happen to have a bit of money...but since the death tax is 100%, off to the orphanage you go.

Right, that's why I said "apart from some exceptions"...


But something similar did happen to me - my dad died 4 years ago and since he didn't have a will, ownership of an apartment him and my mom owned passed down onto me, my sister and my mom according to Bulgarian laws. My mom sold that apartment a year later, and offered to give me a third, but I couldn't take it. How could I? Its not like I ever did anything to deserve it.

Another common example... I have a number of friends that drive cars given to them by their parents, and they refer to these cars as "my car", despite the fact they did nothing to earn said car except exist.

But based on replies and conversations with friends, I suppose I really am in a small minority when I think that unless you worked and earned something, it's not really yours...

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Imagine being a child and your parents die...your parents happen to have a bit of money...but since the death tax is 100%, off to the orphanage you go.

Right, that's why I said "apart from some exceptions"...


But something similar did happen to me - my dad died 4 years ago and since he didn't have a will, ownership of an apartment him and my mom owned passed down onto me, my sister and my mom according to Bulgarian laws. My mom sold that apartment a year later, and offered to give me a third, but I couldn't take it. How could I? Its not like I ever did anything to deserve it.

Another common example... I have a number of friends that drive cars given to them by their parents, and they refer to these cars as "my car", despite the fact they did nothing to earn said car except exist.

But based on replies and conversations with friends, I suppose I really am in a small minority when I think that unless you worked and earned something, it's not really yours...

The government didn't earn the money either, but you suggest giving it to them?

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: spittledip
If someone earned the money, it should be their right to see who gets it when they die. Why should the govt get the money? I am not asking what they could use it for, I am asking what claim do they haveto it? Why should the govt have more of a claim on what to do with the money than the person who actually earned it? That is some scary thinking.

You must be new.

The Supreme Court ruled that there is no longer any private ownership in the U.S.

(Eminent Domain ruling, look it up).

It goes for all citizens money too except for Indians and Politicians of course.

So what's stopping them from hiking income taxes up to 50%? No one would stand for it and the people who tried would get their arses kicked right out of whatever seat they were holding. The same thing would happen if someone tried to make a 100% inheritance tax. So, even if they supposedly have the legal right to do it, it is unethical and people wouldn't stand for it. Anyway, the OP asked what is wrong with 100% death tax, not if the govt had the power to do it.

 

[palehorse]

it would be a socialist redistribution of wealth through the use of double-taxation.

screw that nonsense!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: her209
The only potential problem I see with "the plan" is that people will start offing the rich people, which may or may not be a good thing. :laugh:

This could actually happen, death tax or no, if the nation ends up as a third world country. (If you think the middle class, the blue collar class, and the poor feel animosity towards the rich right now, you haven't seen anything yet.)

Is it true that in South America, the upper classes live behind gated and guarded walls and travel by helicopter in order to avoid being kidnapped and held for ransom? (I'd love to read some articles about this, btw, in case anyone has links.)