House votes to end federal estate taxes

[AmbitV]

HYPOTHETICAL: Say Bill Gates is worth $40 billion. He dies. He has a kid. How much should this kid get?

ADVOCATE OF ESTATE TAXES: Well if the kid inherits it all he's going to be unproductive and have undeserved economic power. So we should levy an estate tax.

But say the estate tax is an arbitrary 50%. The kid is still worth $20 billion!! He can still be as unproductive as he wants to be, and he still has a huge amount of economic power!!!

If the advocate stays true to his claims, he should say let the kid keep some exclusion (currently 1.5 mil) and tax the rest at 100%!!!

But does the advocate say this? No, he makes up some arbitrary number - 40 or 50%.

MY PSYCHOANALYSIS OF THE ADVOCATE OF ESTATE TAXES: deep in the advocate's heart, he agrees that hard working parents should be allowed to pass their wealth onto their children. But he harbors a deep jealousy of those more wealthy than himself, in particular the extremely wealthy. He wants to find yet another way to redistribute money from the rich to the poor, so he invents an arbitrary 50% tax on all inherited estates. He tries to disguise his motives by citing the founding fathers, the american dream, the unproductivity and concentrated economic power of the heir.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

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%

OK, as for why it shouldn't be 100% past 1.5 million (and why that #? Seems arbitrary to me), I don't think the onus is on the owner of the cash to justify why you SHOULDN'T have the right to take it all away from him, it's on YOU to justify why you SHOULD be able to. What are valid reasons why you should take away property that has been legitimately earned by a given individual rather than letting him use it as he chooses? Is it HIS property or not?

Second, if heirs truly are 100% unproductive (which is far from guaranteed), they certainly aren't going to make any significant use or exercise of this so called "concentrated power". The whole "concentration of power" theory is really just tinfoil hat crap. It's not private wealth you need to worry about, it's public power. Don't fear the man who says he's out for his own gain, he's telling you the truth. Run for your life from any man who tells you he has no self interest and is only out for the public good.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: magomago
out of curiosity I am wondering who was pushing for this repeal? Just wondering~

The rich....for the rich.

Let's reward inactivity.

You prove again and again what a moron you are, man. I work DAILY with and for a RICH guy (owner of the company I work for, $30+ million a year) and I'll tell you what, the dude works his ASS off. He works sometimes 12-15 hours a DAY.

My last boss was a senior director for Siemens, making well over a MILLION dollars a year, and that guy not only worked his ass off, but he knew his material across a WIDE range of hardware/software platforms and was always helping out folks in every department.

Rich does NOT equal "inactive" or "lazy" or anything else. I have YET to meet a Rich person who was just a lazy good-for-nothing.

Envious dick.

Jason

Whoohoo! Alex is dishing it out...

While Conjur's current points suck, the rich should always be the last to get tax breaks, thet should also be the the first to get the tax increase. They, for the most part have everything they need to live their rich and successfull lives. Do hard working rich people exsist? I am sure they do, I hope to become a hard working rich person. Are there lazy rich people that do nothing? Yes there sure are, look at George Bush.

Poor people NEED tax breaks, rich people don't.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: AmbitV

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28


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.

OK, quickie poll here: How many people keep exact track of how much in gifts they give away to family, friends, etc. over their lifetime? Anyone? ANyone?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

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.

What do you mean by "pay for Society" ? There are legitimate things taxes should pay for, such as:

1. Military
2. Representatives (Congress, president, judges, etc)
3. Courts
4. Police
5. Fire
6. *maybe* roads, and I'm not 100% sure that they shouldn't be privately maintained, or at least, *local* government maintained rather than federal
7. Education

The sheer number of pork projects and social programs in this country are *absurd*. We don't need to spend 2 TRILLION dollars every single year.

Jason

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: magomago
out of curiosity I am wondering who was pushing for this repeal? Just wondering~

The rich....for the rich.

Let's reward inactivity.

You prove again and again what a moron you are, man. I work DAILY with and for a RICH guy (owner of the company I work for, $30+ million a year) and I'll tell you what, the dude works his ASS off. He works sometimes 12-15 hours a DAY.

My last boss was a senior director for Siemens, making well over a MILLION dollars a year, and that guy not only worked his ass off, but he knew his material across a WIDE range of hardware/software platforms and was always helping out folks in every department.

Rich does NOT equal "inactive" or "lazy" or anything else. I have YET to meet a Rich person who was just a lazy good-for-nothing.

Envious dick.

Jason

Looks like quite the personal attack there, Jason. That's quite the bannable offense, you know. I've been banned for less, btw.

IAC, you have completely missed my point and your anecdote means nothing.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: 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.

The government does NOT have the right to just arbitrarily take anyone's money or property, and it is NOT in the Constitution. On the contrary, the Constitution states, in the fifth amendment, that:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Yes, they can tax you for legitimate services, and there's no argument from me on that front. What constitutes legitimate services though, is a matter of wildly divergent opinion, very little of which has anything to do with the Constitution. For the most part, legislators consider "legitimate services" to mean whatever pet projects they bring in with them when they are elected, and whichever items serve as political fodder for keeping them in office.

Jason

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Who here among us truly fears ever paying an estate tax? Will you really have millions when you die? -Most likely no.

Should the rich pay more taxes, based solely on the fact that they are rich (this tax doesn?t differentiate between inheritance and earned wealth)? -Hells no.

What it does not do is just chop businesses in half. This tax pushes you to enjoy your wealth or to actively put your money into business and communities. You can still choose to pay the tax to pass along your investments to your children, but let?s make one thing clear, you?re kids are going to be rich : )

As a liberal you might be surprised to hear this, but I don?t mind the tax being cut, but doing so while we continue to run massive budget deficits, pay massive amounts on interest on our total deficit, pay to rebuild nations overseas, and stand to soon inherit a looming Medicare crisis would just be stupid.

Yes, Republicans who are pushing this now are truly irresponsible. It would be great to get rid of this silly tax, but first plan to balance the books- then cut this tax.

-Reader

 

[imported_redlotus]

MY PSYCHOANALYSIS OF THE ADVOCATE OF ESTATE TAXES: deep in the advocate's heart, he agrees that hard working parents should be allowed to pass their wealth onto their children. But he harbors a deep jealousy of those more wealthy than himself, in particular the extremely wealthy. He wants to find yet another way to redistribute money from the rich to the poor, so he invents an arbitrary 50% tax on all inherited estates. He tries to disguise his motives by citing the founding fathers, the american dream, the unproductivity and concentrated economic power of the heir.

Nice Lumping, Ambit. Here's my take:

Deep in the advocate's heart, he agrees that hard working parents should be allowed to pass their wealth onto their children (at least we can agree on this point). However, the advocate sees the debate from the other side of the coin. Anything that the heirs receieve is income and should be taxed just like any other income. He feels that issueing taxes on inheritance is the lesser of two evils compared to raising taxes on the living. Also, he honestly cannot understand how receiving $25 million instead of $50 million would affect someone's life so adversely.

I can see how some people give you the impression that you have of us advocates. However, they don't comprise the entire lot of us. Please be careful not to lump us all into the same group of 'Robin Hoods'. Some (if not most) of us just want a little bit of fairness here.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Mill

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.

I'm bitter? You're the person who went off the deep end ala McCowen and started posting 75 times a day in P&N. You know how many members have PMed me to say how bitter and silly you've become in the past year or two? Seriously, at least 20 people who used to be buds with you in OT. In the recent past you've even claimed to be a "Conservative" but that's about insane. I'm not bitter, I'm a realist, I can't help that your perceive that as bitterness in your fantasy and conspiracy laden world.

You should drop the act of being a victim. George W. Bush didn't cause you to lose your mind -- posting on this forum 75 times a day did. You lost rationality and logic about 15k posts ago, and there's a whole lot of damn people that agree with me. We're just all bitter assholes, though. :laugh:

Are you going to respond to my points, or just acknowledge your hypocrisy by casual deflection?

This coming from someone with 23k posts. LOL

Are you high? 23k posts since Oct. 99 that's a 11.49 average. Oh gee. Conjur's avg is 32 posts a freaking day. There's not a difference or anything. :roll:

 

[AmbitV]

Originally posted by: redlotus

MY PSYCHOANALYSIS OF THE ADVOCATE OF ESTATE TAXES: deep in the advocate's heart, he agrees that hard working parents should be allowed to pass their wealth onto their children. But he harbors a deep jealousy of those more wealthy than himself, in particular the extremely wealthy. He wants to find yet another way to redistribute money from the rich to the poor, so he invents an arbitrary 50% tax on all inherited estates. He tries to disguise his motives by citing the founding fathers, the american dream, the unproductivity and concentrated economic power of the heir.

Nice Lumping, Ambit. Here's my take:

Deep in the advocate's heart, he agrees that hard working parents should be allowed to pass their wealth onto their children (at least we can agree on this point). However, the advocate sees the debate from the other side of the coin. Anything that the heirs receieve is income and should be taxed just like any other income. He feels that issueing taxes on inheritance is the lesser of two evils compared to raising taxes on the living. Also, he honestly cannot understand how receiving $25 million instead of $50 million would affect someone's life so adversely.

I can see how some people give you the impression that you have of us advocates. However, they don't comprise the entire lot of us. Please be careful not to lump us all into the same group of 'Robin Hoods'. Some (if not most) of us just want a little bit of fairness here.

Can you explain how an inheritance is income? The heir does no work, and makes no initial investment. Even a lottery winner makes an initial investment in the lottery ticket.

You say inheritances should be taxed "just like any other income", but the point is, inheritances are NOT like any other income.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Mill

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.

Umm, a 100% death tax is a tad different than the taxation rates on other income is it not?

The estate tax is 0% below $3.5 million and never reaches 100%.

I'm talking about what conjur and others said, have you been reading the thread?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
It would be great to get rid of this silly tax, but first plan to balance the books- then cut this tax.

-Reader

I believe that sums it all up right there. Get this government back on a fiscally responsible path, lower the debt and cut wasteful spending and esp. cut the defense budget and we can then lower income taxes, rescind other taxes, etc.

But, it's going to take a President *and* a Congress willing to make those cuts (and maybe even raise taxes a bit at first to being cutting down the deficit.)

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Again, I don't see the difference between giving a gift while alive and giving a gift while dead.

If a person retires (but is still alive) and gives his entire bank account to his son, wouldn't that be taxed?

It absolutely depends. It can be structured so that it isn't.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: magomago
out of curiosity I am wondering who was pushing for this repeal? Just wondering~

The rich....for the rich.

Let's reward inactivity.

You prove again and again what a moron you are, man. I work DAILY with and for a RICH guy (owner of the company I work for, $30+ million a year) and I'll tell you what, the dude works his ASS off. He works sometimes 12-15 hours a DAY.

My last boss was a senior director for Siemens, making well over a MILLION dollars a year, and that guy not only worked his ass off, but he knew his material across a WIDE range of hardware/software platforms and was always helping out folks in every department.

Rich does NOT equal "inactive" or "lazy" or anything else. I have YET to meet a Rich person who was just a lazy good-for-nothing.

Envious dick.

Jason

Looks like quite the personal attack there, Jason. That's quite the bannable offense, you know. I've been banned for less, btw.

IAC, you have completely missed my point and your anecdote means nothing.

This whole thread has been personal, because some people are being wholly illogical and basically spitting on those who differ. I'm guilty of it too.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
It would be great to get rid of this silly tax, but first plan to balance the books- then cut this tax.

-Reader

I believe that sums it all up right there. Get this government back on a fiscally responsible path, lower the debt and cut wasteful spending and esp. cut the defense budget and we can then lower income taxes, rescind other taxes, etc.

But, it's going to take a President *and* a Congress willing to make those cuts (and maybe even raise taxes a bit at first to being cutting down the deficit.)

Clinton did a pretty good job of balancing while giving the middle class a tax cut.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: magomago
out of curiosity I am wondering who was pushing for this repeal? Just wondering~

The rich....for the rich.

Let's reward inactivity.

You prove again and again what a moron you are, man. I work DAILY with and for a RICH guy (owner of the company I work for, $30+ million a year) and I'll tell you what, the dude works his ASS off. He works sometimes 12-15 hours a DAY.

My last boss was a senior director for Siemens, making well over a MILLION dollars a year, and that guy not only worked his ass off, but he knew his material across a WIDE range of hardware/software platforms and was always helping out folks in every department.

Rich does NOT equal "inactive" or "lazy" or anything else. I have YET to meet a Rich person who was just a lazy good-for-nothing.

Envious dick.

Jason

Looks like quite the personal attack there, Jason. That's quite the bannable offense, you know. I've been banned for less, btw.

IAC, you have completely missed my point and your anecdote means nothing.

I'll tell you what means nothing, Conjur: YOU. Your opinion. You contribute NOTHING to this forum, you run around with your absurd TINFOIL HAT conspiracy theories, your SOCIALIST diatribe about how it's OK to steal from some people and give to others and you rant ENDLESSLY with no point, no meaning, no reason or rationality whatsoever.

You are the biggest JOKE this board has ever seen. You make Dave seem like a political mastermind (and at least he has the capability of occasionally making some sort of sense!)

Go away, stop pretending you're more than an intellectual nat. You are, as usual, stirring crap and contributing NO VALUE to this forum.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
It would be great to get rid of this silly tax, but first plan to balance the books- then cut this tax.

-Reader

I believe that sums it all up right there. Get this government back on a fiscally responsible path, lower the debt and cut wasteful spending and esp. cut the defense budget and we can then lower income taxes, rescind other taxes, etc.

But, it's going to take a President *and* a Congress willing to make those cuts (and maybe even raise taxes a bit at first to being cutting down the deficit.)

Clinton did a pretty good job of balancing while giving the middle class a tax cut.

Sad to say, he definitely did a better job than Bush has so far. The only thing he did WORSE was to ignore terrorist threats (and fingerbang every pussy in a 2000 mile radius) for 8 years.

Jason

 

[Starbuck1975]

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."

Yet one of the motivating factors of a free enterprise economy is the potential to acquire wealth and pass it on to subsequent generations.

Ah yes, the old 'person is a corporation' defense. I'm sorry, but there is no way that you can tell me that your heirs are spending or investing their inheritance on your behalf. Inheritance=Gift from a dead person. Plain and simple.

Not spending it on your behalf per say, but spending it as you are now incapable of doing because you are dead...why does Uncle Sam get to dip into the cookie jar simply because you pass away? The government would not have access to these funds otherwise.

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.

One of the motivating factors of our very society is that subsequent generations will be better off then the ones preceding it...I don't want my kids to have to make the sacrifices I did to improve my quality of life, and as such, I would want them to enjoy the fruits of my labor...they didn't work for it, but it is my choice as to the extent of how I want to distribute as I choose the assets I might acquire in this lifetime.

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.

Democrats have a strange definition of fairness...let's tax those workers out there making an honest living, and then redistribute that money to those who are fully capable of working but choose not to because the welfare state enables them to exist as leeches.

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.

A fairly stereotypical depiction of the aristocracy...many "rich" kids go on to earn advanced degrees from prestigious institutions, and either take over the family business or start their own enterprises...the Paris Hilton model is the exception rather then the rule.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
It would be great to get rid of this silly tax, but first plan to balance the books- then cut this tax.

-Reader

I believe that sums it all up right there. Get this government back on a fiscally responsible path, lower the debt and cut wasteful spending and esp. cut the defense budget and we can then lower income taxes, rescind other taxes, etc.

But, it's going to take a President *and* a Congress willing to make those cuts (and maybe even raise taxes a bit at first to being cutting down the deficit.)

Clinton did a pretty good job of balancing while giving the middle class a tax cut.

Via tax credits and creating things like Medical Savings Accounts. We also had more stability in the world in the 90s which kept the economy flourishing.

It would be interesting to rollback the clock to early 2003 and see how things fared had we not invaded Iraq and compare that to now. But, that's pure pie-in-the-sky thinking.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
It would be great to get rid of this silly tax, but first plan to balance the books- then cut this tax.

-Reader

I believe that sums it all up right there. Get this government back on a fiscally responsible path, lower the debt and cut wasteful spending and esp. cut the defense budget and we can then lower income taxes, rescind other taxes, etc.

But, it's going to take a President *and* a Congress willing to make those cuts (and maybe even raise taxes a bit at first to being cutting down the deficit.)

Clinton did a pretty good job of balancing while giving the middle class a tax cut.

Sad to say, he definitely did a better job than Bush has so far. The only thing he did WORSE was to ignore terrorist threats (and fingerbang every pussy in a 2000 mile radius) for 8 years.

Jason

You spew that BS crap one post after your little 3rd-grade rant aimed at me?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
It would be great to get rid of this silly tax, but first plan to balance the books- then cut this tax.

-Reader

I believe that sums it all up right there. Get this government back on a fiscally responsible path, lower the debt and cut wasteful spending and esp. cut the defense budget and we can then lower income taxes, rescind other taxes, etc.

But, it's going to take a President *and* a Congress willing to make those cuts (and maybe even raise taxes a bit at first to being cutting down the deficit.)

Clinton did a pretty good job of balancing while giving the middle class a tax cut.

Sad to say, he definitely did a better job than Bush has so far. The only thing he did WORSE was to ignore terrorist threats (and fingerbang every pussy in a 2000 mile radius) for 8 years.

Jason

You spew that BS crap one post after your little 3rd-grade rant aimed at me?

Oh? And what BS crap was that, Troll?

Jason

 

[imported_redlotus]

Originally posted by: AmbitV

Can you explain how an inheritance is income? The heir does no work, and makes no initial investment. Even a lottery winner makes an initial investment in the lottery ticket.

You say inheritances should be taxed "just like any other income", but the point is, inheritances are NOT like any other income.

I understand where you are coming from now. I don't agree with you, but I can at least now see your POV.

Inheritance is income because it is money that 'comes in' from somewhere else. The heir didn't own that money before the parent's death. Therefore, it is income-ing monies from the parent. I didn't realize that there was an investing or working requirement to define money as income.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Inheritance is income because it is money that 'comes in' from somewhere else. The heir didn't own that money before the parent's death. Therefore, it is income-ing monies from the parent. I didn't realize that there was an investing or working requirement to define money as income.

I think what causes some confusion, or rather places inheritance in a category of "other then income" is the concept of benefactors. Children obviously enjoy the benefits of their parent's labors across a number of different categories, and some would include the passing on of assets and material possession in the form of an inheritance as being an extension of that principle.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: 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.

The government does NOT have the right to just arbitrarily take anyone's money or property, and it is NOT in the Constitution. On the contrary, the Constitution states, in the fifth amendment, that:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Yes, they can tax you for legitimate services, and there's no argument from me on that front. What constitutes legitimate services though, is a matter of wildly divergent opinion, very little of which has anything to do with the Constitution. For the most part, legislators consider "legitimate services" to mean whatever pet projects they bring in with them when they are elected, and whichever items serve as political fodder for keeping them in office.

Jason

What does that have to do with Estate taxes. They are not taking private property for public use from the owner. They just collect taxes when it is transfered to another owner. If taxing private property is unconstitutional, how do you explain property taxes?