House votes to end federal estate taxes

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: fornax
Bad. Estate tax should be 100%

And why is that, exactly? For what reason would you find it legitimate to ENTIRELY TAKE someone's property with NO compensation?

Jason

Maybe he was being facetious?

One can hope, but around here who the hell knows?

Jason

 

[AmbitV]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
If you can't give what you've earned to whomever or whatever cause you please, it really isn't YOURS, is it? Ownership means that you have the right to use and dispose of something however you choose. It doesn't mean "use it until you die, then the government takes it away and gives it to whomever THEY choose".

If you earn it, it's YOURS to spend or give away as YOU choose. That's how it SHOULD be.

Jason

What are you complaining about? You can give it away to whomever you wish.

However, what's so special about gift income of this type that should make it tax free? Why shouldn't all revenue sources be treated equally?

That's my question as well. To which I've not received an answer for. If there's a reason, I'd like to know.

There is no difference between gifts and inheritances. In fact, the gift tax is part of the overall general estate tax. The current exclusion of 1.5 mil applies to gifts as well. So yes you can give away 1.5mil with no taxes in your lifetime, but that means when you die you no longer get that 1.5 mil exclusion on your estate. It's a 1.5 mil exclusion either way - gift or estate.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: AmbitV

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
If you can't give what you've earned to whomever or whatever cause you please, it really isn't YOURS, is it? Ownership means that you have the right to use and dispose of something however you choose. It doesn't mean "use it until you die, then the government takes it away and gives it to whomever THEY choose".

If you earn it, it's YOURS to spend or give away as YOU choose. That's how it SHOULD be.

Jason

What are you complaining about? You can give it away to whomever you wish.

However, what's so special about gift income of this type that should make it tax free? Why shouldn't all revenue sources be treated equally?

That's my question as well. To which I've not received an answer for. If there's a reason, I'd like to know.

There is no difference between gifts and inheritances. In fact, the gift tax is part of the overall general estate tax. The current exclusion of 1.5 mil applies to gifts as well. So yes you can give away 1.5mil with no taxes in your lifetime, but that means when you die you no longer get that 1.5 mil exclusion on your estate. It's a 1.5 mil exclusion either way - gift or estate.

Ok, at what amount does inheritance start getting taxed?

 

[AmbitV]

Everyone keeps talking about founding fathers, concentrated economic and political power, and tyranny.

OK I get everything you're saying. But still noone who advocates the estate tax has answered this basic question: Past a certain exclusion (say 1.5 million or so), why should the tax rate on estates be anything less than 100%??? If what you say is true about the heirs being unproductive, about the concentrated economic power that comes from inheritances, why should an heir be allowed to keep an arbitrary 50% past the exclusion, as they do now? If what you say is true, the estate tax should be 100%

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: AmbitV

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
If you can't give what you've earned to whomever or whatever cause you please, it really isn't YOURS, is it? Ownership means that you have the right to use and dispose of something however you choose. It doesn't mean "use it until you die, then the government takes it away and gives it to whomever THEY choose".

If you earn it, it's YOURS to spend or give away as YOU choose. That's how it SHOULD be.

Jason

What are you complaining about? You can give it away to whomever you wish.

However, what's so special about gift income of this type that should make it tax free? Why shouldn't all revenue sources be treated equally?

That's my question as well. To which I've not received an answer for. If there's a reason, I'd like to know.

There is no difference between gifts and inheritances. In fact, the gift tax is part of the overall general estate tax. The current exclusion of 1.5 mil applies to gifts as well. So yes you can give away 1.5mil with no taxes in your lifetime, but that means when you die you no longer get that 1.5 mil exclusion on your estate. It's a 1.5 mil exclusion either way - gift or estate.

Ok, at what amount does inheritance start getting taxed?

I think it's at 3 million. there was an effort by the democrats to raise the cap to 6 million, which would have excluded something like 99.97% of estates, but that effort was defeated in favor of a total repeal.

not that we need the extra tax money to pay for things like war or social security or anything important like that.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: AmbitV
Everyone keeps talking about founding fathers, concentrated economic and political power, and tyranny.

OK I get everything you're saying. But still noone who advocates the estate tax has answered this basic question: Past a certain exclusion (say 1.5 million or so), why should the tax rate on estates be anything less than 100%??? If what you say is true about the heirs being unproductive, about the concentrated economic power that comes from inheritances, why should an heir be allowed to keep an arbitrary 50% past the exclusion, as they do now? If what you say is true, the estate tax should be 100%

So you are saying unless we want to have 100% tax on everything, we should have 0% tax, because anything in between is arbitrary? That's pretty weak.

 

[AmbitV]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: AmbitV

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
If you can't give what you've earned to whomever or whatever cause you please, it really isn't YOURS, is it? Ownership means that you have the right to use and dispose of something however you choose. It doesn't mean "use it until you die, then the government takes it away and gives it to whomever THEY choose".

If you earn it, it's YOURS to spend or give away as YOU choose. That's how it SHOULD be.

Jason

What are you complaining about? You can give it away to whomever you wish.

However, what's so special about gift income of this type that should make it tax free? Why shouldn't all revenue sources be treated equally?

That's my question as well. To which I've not received an answer for. If there's a reason, I'd like to know.

There is no difference between gifts and inheritances. In fact, the gift tax is part of the overall general estate tax. The current exclusion of 1.5 mil applies to gifts as well. So yes you can give away 1.5mil with no taxes in your lifetime, but that means when you die you no longer get that 1.5 mil exclusion on your estate. It's a 1.5 mil exclusion either way - gift or estate.

Ok, at what amount does inheritance start getting taxed?

it depends on how much in gifts you gave away in your lifetime. Basically, the sole purpose of the gift tax was to keep people from avoiding the estate tax, because noone really gives away huge sums of money except to their own heirs (charitable contributions are treated differently).

So if you gave away 0 in your life, then when you die any inheritance past 1.5 mil is taxed.

If you gave away 1.5 mil in your life, then when you die the entire estate is taxed.

Basically, it makes no difference whether you give away your entire estate one minute before you die, or you just die and get hit by the estate tax.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: AmbitV

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
If you can't give what you've earned to whomever or whatever cause you please, it really isn't YOURS, is it? Ownership means that you have the right to use and dispose of something however you choose. It doesn't mean "use it until you die, then the government takes it away and gives it to whomever THEY choose".

If you earn it, it's YOURS to spend or give away as YOU choose. That's how it SHOULD be.

Jason

What are you complaining about? You can give it away to whomever you wish.

However, what's so special about gift income of this type that should make it tax free? Why shouldn't all revenue sources be treated equally?

That's my question as well. To which I've not received an answer for. If there's a reason, I'd like to know.

There is no difference between gifts and inheritances. In fact, the gift tax is part of the overall general estate tax. The current exclusion of 1.5 mil applies to gifts as well. So yes you can give away 1.5mil with no taxes in your lifetime, but that means when you die you no longer get that 1.5 mil exclusion on your estate. It's a 1.5 mil exclusion either way - gift or estate.

Ok, at what amount does inheritance start getting taxed?

I think it's at 3 million. there was an effort by the democrats to raise the cap to 6 million, which would have excluded something like 99.97% of estates, but that effort was defeated in favor of a total repeal.

not that we need the extra tax money to pay for things like war or social security or anything important like that.

And how much is that tax at $3 million?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it's at 3 million. there was an effort by the democrats to raise the cap to 6 million, which would have excluded something like 99.97% of estates, but that effort was defeated in favor of a total repeal.

not that we need the extra tax money to pay for things like war or social security or anything important like that.

And how much is that tax at $3 million?

IMO, whatever the tax rate would have been had that money been earned by the recipient.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it's at 3 million. there was an effort by the democrats to raise the cap to 6 million, which would have excluded something like 99.97% of estates, but that effort was defeated in favor of a total repeal.

not that we need the extra tax money to pay for things like war or social security or anything important like that.

And how much is that tax at $3 million?

IMO, whatever the tax rate would have been had that money been earned by the recipient.

So what the hell's the problem?

 

[AmbitV]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: AmbitV
Everyone keeps talking about founding fathers, concentrated economic and political power, and tyranny.

OK I get everything you're saying. But still noone who advocates the estate tax has answered this basic question: Past a certain exclusion (say 1.5 million or so), why should the tax rate on estates be anything less than 100%??? If what you say is true about the heirs being unproductive, about the concentrated economic power that comes from inheritances, why should an heir be allowed to keep an arbitrary 50% past the exclusion, as they do now? If what you say is true, the estate tax should be 100%

So you are saying unless we want to have 100% tax on everything, we should have 0% tax, because anything in between is arbitrary? That's pretty weak.

Did I say anywhere that my justification for having 0% tax is because of the arbitrariness of everything else? No. All I am saying is that if I have independent justification for a 0% tax rate, at least that is being consistent and non-arbitrary.

But I am challenging those advocates of the estate tax to give a reason for the arbitrary 50% tax rate. Their main justification for the estate tax is that it allows the heirs to live unproductively and that it results in a concentration of economic power over time. If that is their justification, then they are being inconsistent if they advocate anything less than a 100% tax rate past a certain exclusion.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it's at 3 million. there was an effort by the democrats to raise the cap to 6 million, which would have excluded something like 99.97% of estates, but that effort was defeated in favor of a total repeal.

not that we need the extra tax money to pay for things like war or social security or anything important like that.

And how much is that tax at $3 million?

IMO, whatever the tax rate would have been had that money been earned by the recipient.

So what the hell's the problem?

The problem now is there is no tax.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: AmbitV
I am challenging those advocates of the estate tax to give a reason for the arbitrary 50% tax rate.

we've got to pay for society somehow. taxing an extremely small number of estates seems like a good enough way to do it.

it's no more morally just or wrong than income tax, sales tax, or property tax.

 

[AmbitV]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: AmbitV
I am challenging those advocates of the estate tax to give a reason for the arbitrary 50% tax rate.

we've got to pay for society somehow. taxing an extremely small number of estates seems like a good enough way to do it.

it's no more morally just or wrong than income tax, sales tax, or property tax.

I don't see any reasoning whatsoever in what you posted. I can say we should tax all gay people. That would be a relatively small number of people. Gotta pay for society somehow right?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
It is part of the American dream...some of these rich people you seem to despise busted their asses so that their children and grandchildren could stop to smell the flowers and enjoy life a bit.

No, the American dream was to be free of the power of inherited wealth and nobility.

Thomas Paine advocated for inheritance taxes. John Adams believed that when "economic power be came concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny."

The American spirit hasn't been lost today, as Warren Buffet points out how inheritance undermines not only democracy, but competition and free enterprise: "Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit."

The "American Dream" is open to interpretation, for one thing, but probably the LARGEST motivator was to be free from oppressive government that tried to dictate to every man right down to his religious beliefs. The American Revolution was effectively set off by a tax increase of less than ONE percent.

Part of the "Dream" was to be free from a state in which the only way to BECOME wealthy was to be born into (as in the old aristocracies in Europe). It was NEVER part of the dream that a man should be able to earn as much wealth as he wants but that it reverts to the state upon his death.

As for being worried about those who inherit wealth, why bother? A great many of those who inherit wealth end up blowing it anyway, and wasting their lives in the process. I say let them blow it, and let that be a reminder that money will not give you value if you are a worthless human being. The only people fit to inherit money are those who would have made their own fortune anyway, to be sure, but that doesn't mean that you, me or the government have a right to take away what someone else EARNED and wanted to leave to their children. Practicality aside, it's IMMORAL for us to intervene.

Jason

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
It is part of the American dream...some of these rich people you seem to despise busted their asses so that their children and grandchildren could stop to smell the flowers and enjoy life a bit.

No, the American dream was to be free of the power of inherited wealth and nobility.

Thomas Paine advocated for inheritance taxes. John Adams believed that when "economic power be came concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny."

The American spirit hasn't been lost today, as Warren Buffet points out how inheritance undermines not only democracy, but competition and free enterprise: "Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit."

The "American Dream" is open to interpretation, for one thing, but probably the LARGEST motivator was to be free from oppressive government that tried to dictate to every man right down to his religious beliefs. The American Revolution was effectively set off by a tax increase of less than ONE percent.

Part of the "Dream" was to be free from a state in which the only way to BECOME wealthy was to be born into (as in the old aristocracies in Europe). It was NEVER part of the dream that a man should be able to earn as much wealth as he wants but that it reverts to the state upon his death.

As for being worried about those who inherit wealth, why bother? A great many of those who inherit wealth end up blowing it anyway, and wasting their lives in the process. I say let them blow it, and let that be a reminder that money will not give you value if you are a worthless human being. The only people fit to inherit money are those who would have made their own fortune anyway, to be sure, but that doesn't mean that you, me or the government have a right to take away what someone else EARNED and wanted to leave to their children. Practicality aside, it's IMMORAL for us to intervene.

Jason

:thumbsup:

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: AmbitV

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: AmbitV
The only argument in favor of the estate tax so far is that it allows someone who did nothing to inherit millions.

OK, but what's with the arbitraty 40 or 50% number? If the person did nothing, doesn't that mean they should get nothing? And don't compare this "unearned income" to stock dividends or interest, because the heir made no initial investment.

The way I see it, all those in favor of the estate tax have to logically be in favor of a 100% estate tax.

No, that's absurd.

What about flax tax supporters? It doesn't matter what the source of the income is, if you have income, it should be taxed the same way, whether the income be from salary, dividends, capital gains, or inheritance.

Again, how is an inheritance comparable to "salary, dividends, capital gains"?????

Salary comes from work; Dividends and capital gains are from an initial investment.

Heirs do no work, they make no initial investment. Therefore shouldn't the tax rate be 100%, if there is indeed a rate (past a certain exemption of course).

Let's be clearer here, shall we? Heirs do no work for that particular bit of income. It does not necessarily follow that anyone who inherits anything is a lazy layabout. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but that's not the point: The point is that the person GIVING the inheritance worked, earned the money, paid taxes on the money, and it is therefore his or hers to do with as he chooses, whether he gives that to his children or to a charity.

Personally, I'll make sure that ALL of my childrens' inheritance is converted to CASH and distributed *before* I die so the government gets very, very little.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
His heirs didn't earn it, HE earned it, and it's HIS right to do with it as he pleases. His will stated that he wanted it to go to his heirs. Problem with that?

No, you can give the money to whoever you wish, but it shouldn't be treated differently from any other type of income.

Then why a special estate tax? Why not just tax it in the same way and at the same rate as normal income, with a 1099? Cut down on the paperwork, the beaurocracy and the hassle and get on with it!

Jason

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: AmbitV

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: AmbitV
I am challenging those advocates of the estate tax to give a reason for the arbitrary 50% tax rate.

we've got to pay for society somehow. taxing an extremely small number of estates seems like a good enough way to do it.

it's no more morally just or wrong than income tax, sales tax, or property tax.

I don't see any reasoning whatsoever in what you posted. I can say we should tax all gay people. That would be a relatively small number of people. Gotta pay for society somehow right?

we might just have to.

congress is faced with a choice of either cutting spending or raising taxes. thus far, they only seem to be able to increase spending and cut taxes. it's not an indefinately sustainable situation.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mill
conjur, since you think the "rich" people should fund healthcare and education, I assume you did your part when you had free time? When you were unemployed for that stretch, you were volunteering at free clinics and hospitals right? You were subbing at schools for no pay, right? I mean otherwise -- that's pretty foul.

Modern day Robin Hood? Steal from the "rich" and give to the "poor." Very interesting.

Like I said. Drop the fvcking sarcasm. We all know you're a bitter person, you don't have to remind us with every post.

What, Conjur, bitter because he has you nailed like a 2 dollar hooker?

Jason

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
It is part of the American dream...some of these rich people you seem to despise busted their asses so that their children and grandchildren could stop to smell the flowers and enjoy life a bit.

No, the American dream was to be free of the power of inherited wealth and nobility.

Thomas Paine advocated for inheritance taxes. John Adams believed that when "economic power be came concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny."

The American spirit hasn't been lost today, as Warren Buffet points out how inheritance undermines not only democracy, but competition and free enterprise: "Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit."

The "American Dream" is open to interpretation, for one thing, but probably the LARGEST motivator was to be free from oppressive government that tried to dictate to every man right down to his religious beliefs. The American Revolution was effectively set off by a tax increase of less than ONE percent.

Part of the "Dream" was to be free from a state in which the only way to BECOME wealthy was to be born into (as in the old aristocracies in Europe). It was NEVER part of the dream that a man should be able to earn as much wealth as he wants but that it reverts to the state upon his death.

As for being worried about those who inherit wealth, why bother? A great many of those who inherit wealth end up blowing it anyway, and wasting their lives in the process. I say let them blow it, and let that be a reminder that money will not give you value if you are a worthless human being. The only people fit to inherit money are those who would have made their own fortune anyway, to be sure, but that doesn't mean that you, me or the government have a right to take away what someone else EARNED and wanted to leave to their children. Practicality aside, it's IMMORAL for us to intervene.

Jason

The government has a right to take what someone else earned. The right to levy taxes. It's in the Constitution. If you disagree with it, you can try to pass an ammendment, but as of now, it's there, and it's there because it was ratified by the States.
And just because you may blow your money on something anyways, does not mean you shouldn't pay taxes when you receive it. I may blow my salary in Vegas next month, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't pay taxes on it. I don't think people getting money from their parents should be subject to a lower tax rate than those working to earn that money.

 

[imported_redlotus]

Originally posted by: AmbitV

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: AmbitV
I am challenging those advocates of the estate tax to give a reason for the arbitrary 50% tax rate.

we've got to pay for society somehow. taxing an extremely small number of estates seems like a good enough way to do it.

it's no more morally just or wrong than income tax, sales tax, or property tax.

I don't see any reasoning whatsoever in what you posted. I can say we should tax all gay people. That would be a relatively small number of people. Gotta pay for society somehow right?

But then you would be taking money away from individuals who could use or may even need the money today. What use does a dead person have for money?

As for the 50%, of couse it's arbitrary. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd assume that the people here don't have unlimited access to an expert economist to determine the effects of different tax rates. Therefore, any percentage that we talk about here has been pulled from our collective rear ends and doesn't warrant debate.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: AmbitV

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: AmbitV

Originally posted by: cquark
What about flax tax supporters? It doesn't matter what the source of the income is, if you have income, it should be taxed the same way, whether the income be from salary, dividends, capital gains, or inheritance.

Again, how is an inheritance comparable to "salary, dividends, capital gains"?????

It's income. Money has nothing attached to it that marks it as being somehow special just because it was a gift rather than salary.

The reason our income tax is so insanely complex and why a tax accountant can reduce your taxes by so much is because of all the complexities of sorting and classifying money by income types. It's a bad idea.

OK, then give me one reason why someone who does absolutely nothing and inherits a vast sum of money should be allowed to keep 50% of it. The person did not work for it, made no initial investment.

Because the person who DID earn it wanted to spend it on that person (the inheritee). Where do you come off with this "should be allowed" crap? Do other people's lives belong to YOU? Do other people have to justify how they use THEIR OWN PROPERTY to YOU?

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Republicans have a strange definition of fairness. Let's tax workers to pay for the government, but let trustfund babies live off capital gains and inheritances without paying taxes, or paying at a much lower rate.
I think someone earning a living should not be taxed at a higher rate than someone leeching off his parents inheritance. A worker actually contributes to the society by producing goods and services, instead of skimming off the top. We don't need to reward a lazy and complacent aristocracy or oligarchy while punishing workers with a tax burden.

Yeah, Republicans DO have a strange idea of fairness, but then, so do Democrats. The only people I hear even APPROACHING an honest definition of fairness are small time 3rd party candidates that no one pays a damn bit of attention to because they're obsessed with picking "the likely winner" and voting for him. People don't vote on PRINCIPLE anymore, they vote based on party affiliation and perceived likely winner. They want to be on the winning side, no matter what that side stands for (or fails to stand for in the case of both major parties.) Hell, Americans would vote for fvcking *STALIN* if they thought he had a chance of beating the incumbent.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
If you can't give what you've earned to whomever or whatever cause you please, it really isn't YOURS, is it? Ownership means that you have the right to use and dispose of something however you choose. It doesn't mean "use it until you die, then the government takes it away and gives it to whomever THEY choose".

If you earn it, it's YOURS to spend or give away as YOU choose. That's how it SHOULD be.

Jason

What are you complaining about? You can give it away to whomever you wish.

However, what's so special about gift income of this type that should make it tax free? Why shouldn't all revenue sources be treated equally?

OK, suppose this: I pick up my paycheck from work and cash it. It's already been taxed, right? Right. My girlfriend needs some surgery and it's gonna cost some extra that her insurance won't cover, so I hand over my check (minus gas money for the week) as a gift to help make sure things are covered. SHould that money be taxed again?

I think it shouldn't.

Jason