What's wrong with near 100% death tax?

[JD50]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: Corbett
Wow. Socialism at its finiest.

That would be a great motivator in life to know that if I work hard and ear lots of money, it will all go to the government when I die and not my children. I cant believe some of the responces I am seeing in this thread.

QFT, borderline Communism.

No, scratch that, it is, @100%, that is just straight up retarded.

File this in the not going to happen ever category.

I fail to see how this is borderline communism. This actually enforces the idea of a meritocracy. You earn what you work for. I personally don't advocate a 100% estate tax but I do think it should be pretty high above a certain point. I also think it would go a decently long ways toward lowering taxes on the still living.

I don't have this view because the people are wealthy. Hell, more power to them for working their ass off. I just don't believe someone should be given extremely valuable assets when they did nothing to earn them.

Well hell, lets start taxing our kids Christmas presents. I mean really, what did my 4 year old do to earn his leapstar? How about the bike that I bought him, what did he do to earn that?

What is wrong with you people, why is it that you are so eager to tax any and everything that you possibly can? You even want to tax people once they are dead, this is ridiculous. Maybe we should work on cutting spending and worry less about raising taxes.

Nice hyperbole. :roll: I'm not saying we should have a 100% estate tax. I do, however, at the very least think it should be taxed as income. That unfortunately would not solve the problem an estate tax could solve which only occurs at the highest income quintile. There could possibly be a sliding scale but to be honest I have no great argument against considering it anything other than income.

I'm definitely not someone who is looking to tax everything that can be taxed to the maximum amount. I would prefer cuts on spending probably even more than you. But there would still be spending and that require the government to come up with revenue. I would rather shift taxes to where they make sense. This makes complete sense. The person is dead and doesn't really have property rights. It also promotes meritocracy and puts a stop to societal leeches.

I guess my point is that we are taxed on every single thing that we do all throughout our life, with the government always having their hand in our wallet, we could at least give the dead a break. I think just about everyone that has something to pass down has paid their fair share throughout their lifetime, no need to tax someone once they are dead as well.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

You can't legislate your way to a meritocracy anymore then you can legislate away gravity. Meritocracy is a fundamentally flawed concept when it's used with notions of 'deserve' in the typical moral sense - who decides who deserves what, on what basis, and how do we decide how much credit any person gets for anything? We're all part of a society, and other people heavily affect our every action.

 

[blackangst1]

Why is it those who favor a death tax cant seem to grasp the idea this money has already been taxed?

 

[thegimp03]

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...

I think it'd be ridiculous to tax someone 100% when they die. If someone builds a nest-egg for their children and spouse and any other family, they should have the right to pass it on when they die. Why would you want to give the government everything that they didn't work for?

Oh, and I see someone might argue why give it to the children and spouse (since they didn't work for it)?

If you'd have taken an introductory business class, you'd have learned that sole proprietorships are what built nations' economies. It would be ridiculous to tax these 100% upon the founder's death. The founder's spouse, children, and employees are what keep the business growing.

 

[PrinceofWands]

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...

Because the money that someone earns doesn't belong to the government, or anyone except who that person decides it belongs to. Also that money was already taxed when earned.

My grandparents lived through the depression. They scrimped and saved and supported not only their own family, but friends and sometimes even total strangers. They offered service to their country, they served on juries, they always voted, they campaigned, they participated in their community, and so on, and so on. When they got too old to work they had savings and retirements from a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice (all of it earned, none of it investment income). When my grandpa died there was still plenty of money for my nana to live without worry. When she finally passed and the house was sold and all the assetts tallied there was a fairly large sum of money (to me anyway). She left that money to her grandchildren so that we could go to school, travel a bit of the world, put down payments on our houses, or any other thing that would help us get a start in life and not have to live through the harsh times as minimally as they had.

Now, you're telling me that that money shouldn't have been theirs to do with as they pleased? Didn't they earn that? You believe the government has a right to that money, to give it for corporate welfare, or illegal wars, or whatever else they choose to do? You honestly believe that???

 

[tokie]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Wow. Socialism at its finiest.

That would be a great motivator in life to know that if I work hard and ear lots of money, it will all go to the government when I die and not my children. I cant believe some of the responces I am seeing in this thread.

I wouldn't call it socialism entirely -- it has capitalist elements in it also. Generally, a person's success in a free market will be determined by the demand for the skills and services that they can provide. Giving a lump sum of "free money" from someone else doesn't really follow this model.

That said, I think a death tax is a bad tax -- it does not follow the business cycle. People don't generally die according to a recession or boom, so it is really an unpredictable revenue source for the government. Basically, you don't know when a mega-billionare is going to die to flood the government's coffers.

 

[Legend]

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...

Because we respect a human being's autonomy beyond death.

 

[BriGy86]

I see nothing good about this idea. what makes anyone think that the government would decrease taxes for the living if this were in effect?

 

[spittledip]

There is something very troubling about this idea. It suggests a certain robotic/heartless rationale for those who favor it. It also is chilling in that it seems like a leaning toward a 1984 scenario: it is a HUGE control for the govt to be able to seize 100% of someone's assets when they die.

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: Zorba

But having a really high death tax would not really lower other tax rates, because most people would donate all their money to charity instead.

Then it would help charities. And that's not a bad thing.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: santer

Originally posted by: Zorba

But having a really high death tax would not really lower other tax rates, because most people would donate all their money to charity instead.

Then it would help charities. And that's not a bad thing.

Charity is supposed to be voluntary, not forced like the utopian left believes.

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: Balt


Selfish bastards trying to help their kids. :roll:

But what if it's not for "kids." What if it goes to a retired adult offspring. Does that change anything?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: santer

Originally posted by: Balt


Selfish bastards trying to help their kids. :roll:

But what if it's not for "kids." What if it goes to a retired adult offspring. Does that change anything?

Notice he said THEIR kids, as in, their offspring. And no, it doesn't change a thing, its their money that they paid taxes on, they can do whatever they want with it. The government already got their cut.

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: Balt
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.

Tax laws--including inheritance tax laws--are everybody's business.

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: ntdz
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.

Your point is well taken. But why should someone be able to pass on cash, stocks, bonds?

 

[Aisengard]

Uh, because it's THEIRS. Why should the government get it? What did they do to deserve the money? As a matter of fact, if the government is made of the people, and you are one of the people it would technically be 'going to', what in the god damn hell did YOU do to deserve that person's money? You talk about greed, but that's all your motivation really is. Greed and jealousy for those whose parents just so happened to not be screw-ups.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: santer

Originally posted by: ntdz
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.

Your point is well taken. But why should someone be able to pass on cash, stocks, bonds?

Why are you even asking that question. The question should be, why shouldn't someone be able to pass on cash, stocks, bonds?

Why should someone be free? Why should someone be allowed to vote? Do you see my point?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: santer

Originally posted by: ntdz
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.

Your point is well taken. But why should someone be able to pass on cash, stocks, bonds?

Because it is their's and not the government's?

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

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?

But what if it's a 60 year old child, who uses the money to enhance his retirement? Such is my position.

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: 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.

Point well taken. But what if it's not a business? What if it's cash, stocks, bonds that your passing to your 60 year old son, who is going to use to enhance an early retirement?

 

[sothsegger]

The reason this issue is unresolvable is that death makes life absurd:thumbsup::thumbsdown:.

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: 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?

The government is the people. "Of the people, for the people, by the people." Remember?

 

[ProfJohn]

Question... why should we wait till people die to take their money?

Why not just take it now. What's the difference?

 

[TheAdvocate]

Ahh the reset switch for the game.

It's logical, from an idealistic perspective, but as a family man, there is no way I want my entire estate taken from my wife and children.

But at the same time, past a certain, debatable amount of money and assets, the capitalistic buildup of assets is just a game, because the dollars stop being meaningful. What's the difference between a $100 millionaire and $200 million? Not much, because the money stops being useful past a point, aside from just giving it away to one cause, which defeats the purpose of the retention argument. This is evidenced by guys like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett electing to give away most of their estate.

Personally, I favor the estate tax, but with a fairly high floor (say $10 million). Not having it above those levels just breeds aristocracy in America, which is a terrible thing from a pure capitalistic and social perspective. Just hand these folks a "you win at capitalism" plaque and divy up 50% of their assets above $10 mil. And speaking to the point about Gates and Buffett, it should only kick in if you don't devise it out yourself - I do think the person should have first say in where the money goes (charities, foundations, research, trusts, etc). Let's not forget that's the way the law works now. If you don't want it taken by the govt., there are plenty of instruments & good causes to avoid estate tax.

 

[Zebo]

I totally agree with this concept and my parents are well healed..don't know how rich but Dad sold his lighting company for 30 million last year. Two of my brothers are just sitting basically idle knowing they have no worries. I think it encourages sloth knowing you have a "backup" should you do nothing. I honestly hope my parents spend every dime and leave them high and dry.. actively encouraging expensive exotic trips, charity giving etc. I am executor of will and would give it all to charity if I could.

Don't tax any wages or investments while alive gives people more to enjoy while alive too.

Of course loop holes would be extremely simple. Just pay your kids a massive, now tax free salary. Trusts. And a million more ways clever accountants and banks have to transfer wealth not being inheritance.