What would a fair estate tax be to you?

[Herman Munster]

According to what I've read, the republicans are proposing to exempt from taxation up to $5 million for an individual and $10 million for a couple.

Under current law, $2 million is exempt this year. $3.5 million will be exempt in 2009. And in 2010, there will be no estate tax at all. Expect a lot of mysterious deaths in 2010 from rich people!

$1 million in exemptions indexed to inflation every year, sounds about right to me.

[aquart]

1. I could live on a million.

Of course, I'm very frugal.

[ThomCat]

2. Inheritance should count as income.

Tax it progressively as additional income. Why should inherited income not count as income?

And while we're at it, make unearned income taxible just like wages. Hell, make it taxible at a higher rate because it's unearned.

[Herman Munster]

4. because it penalizes savers

If someone wants to live frugally to give a better life for their children, that's their business as far as I'm concerned up to a reasonable limit. $1 million is reasonable to me. It's nothing like Paris Hilton money where a kid can just shit it all away and never work for the rest of their life doing nothing.

[ThomCat]

12. The saver isn't penalized at all.

The saver is dead. As for the inheriter, they're getting a gift. As far as I'm concerned they should be greatful for the gift and stop whining that they didn't get more.

I don't think any form of income should have a $1 million deduction. That's just crazy.

Encouraging saving may be good for society, but rewarding rich people with tax free gifts is not.

[Berzerkley]

138. Family money

That 1 million you are talking about is family money, which some may feel is collectively owned by the family. Is it really taxable income, like income from a job, if that money was already technically yours?

Besides, who do you consider to be rich? Because I don't consider a family with 1 or 2 million dollars to be extremely wealthy... maybe upper middle class, but certainly far from a Paris Hilton lifestyle.

[cushla_machree]

158. wow

1-2 million dollars is upper middle class? Holy crap has American perceptions and wealth sure changed. I can't even fathom making 500,000 a year let alone a million.

[LiberalFighter]

18. They don't need to change the tax laws for inheritance (estate)

At least not increase the exemption. Those that want to provide to their kids or others can also do so while they are alive and on an annual basis.

Up to a reasonable limit... $1 million is a good number. Still not many will receive that much from an estate unless they were already well off.

[bryant69]

5. How high would the highest tax rate be?

And could you give me an example of unearned income (besides inheritance i guess).

At any rate, I see some value in splitting them out as seperate taxes.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ThomCat]

14. Income from investments is officially classified as

unearned income. It's not a term I invented.

I think the maximum tax rate should go back up to around 50%. Far lower than it has historically been, but higher than it is right now.

[bryant69]

17. So fold Capitals Gains and Inheritance back into general income

That could be beneficial - maybe simplify things a little. I have to assume you would also tighten up the deduction system.

Bryant

[Herman Munster]

20. and have everyone's 401k's drop 50%

That would fuck everyone's retirement. People would sell all their long capital gains before the tax rate switches.

We'll have a historic market crash. Everyone would sell and pay 15% taxes before the rate goes up to 36%.

[ThomCat]

24. I think making everyone dependent on 401ks is a big mistake.

That was the first step in propping up the stock market and getting rid of pensions. Nobody should have to rely on gambling and speculation to retire, and that's what a 401k is.

[bryant69]

26. The tricky part, however, is how do we bell that particular cat.

[ThomCat]

28. By expanding social security.

Allow people to contribute more towards social security, which goes into government bonds and helps pay off government debt in exchange for higher benefits when you retire or become disabled.

[SharonAnn]

147. Pay off government debt? That's not what's happening with the GOP.

They're using our Social Security money to run the government and line their pockets. To them those are the same thing. War = Halliburton, etc.

If they had more social Security money to play with, they'd just do more of the same.

[Common Sense Party]

39. Gambling and speculation?

Personally, I'm a lot more confident relying on my 401k and my personal savings than I am on the incredibly inefficent federal government.

Do you want the people in charge of Katrina to be in charge of your whole retirement income?

[ThomCat]

43. "incredibly inefficent federal government"

What republican organization sent you here?

The federal government has been more efficient that private business in almost every situation where they've been compared. For example, the overhead on federally managed healthcare has been reported around 1-3% Private insurance averages around 11%.

DHS screwed up in N.O. because the Bush adminstration gutted funding for disaster preparedness and put lackies in charge. If FEMA was separate from DHS and had professionals in charge they would still be doing a better job than any private company could manage.

Private companies are only more efficient at making profit, not at providing services.

[Selatius]

46. The Social Security board of trustees is not under the thumb of Bush

Or any one particular politician. FDR set up Social Security to be free from that kind of tampering for a reason...to avoid people like Bush from intentionally driving the program into the ground.

[ThomCat]

50. And your point is?

Social Security has been running a surplus, and still is. If we weren't draining that surplus into the general budget then SS would not be projecting any problems. And even as it is, those problems are projected for decades down the road and there are simple solutions to avoid those problems.

How does that make SS less efficient than anything the private sector offers. The private sector doesn't offer anything even remotely comparable.

[Selatius]

52. My point is I'm fine with Social Security as it is.

I thought that came off rather clearly, imho.

[ThomCat]

54. Sorry.

:)

[hughee99]

146. Aren't pension funds invested in the market

just like 401k's? How is a pension safe, but 401ks are "gambling and speculation"? If a company collapses, or falls on hard times, a person could lose their pension, regardless of how it's invested, because a company doesn't meet it's obligations. If my company falls apart, my 401k is still there. A person has almost no say in how their pension is invested, and little recourse if they feel it is being invested unwisely, but they have much greater control of their 401k.

[ThomCat]

25. Yes, absolutely.

[napi21]

132. Actually "unearned income" is EXACTLY that...ANY income that

is not earned through wages! I remember having a discussion with our Tax accountant once about "found money".

Believe it or not, if you fine money hidden in the wall of an old house you just bought, it's taxable under the rules of the IRS! I forget the exact wording in the IRS laws, but it's something like "Any income from ANY SOURCE!"

[annabanana]

13. it should count as WAGES...

different kinds of income get taxed differently..

(the capital gains tax is always being cut by these sharks)

[Finder]

108. I agree with the first part of your post...n/t

[patrice]

3. Sounds reasonable to me. I don't know much about this, but I would

bet that most of us don't want to take ALL of their money away.

Is there some way of identifying the cost to "the system" of producing wealth in the first place? So we could propose a fair payback/taxes?

[RB TexLa]

6. None, it's as morally wrong to tax a $100M estate as it is a $100 one.

[elehhhhna]

19. Why is a tax on inheritance "morally wrong"?

[RB TexLa]

23. So if you want to leave $100 to someone you think it's right that they

should have to give whatever percent to the government?

[Selatius]

30. Under current law, if you inherit 100 dollars, you should pay no taxes

Your first 2,000,000 is tax-free at the federal level, I believe, barring local and state tax laws. Everything else beyond that point is taxed at 49%, I think.

[RB TexLa]

31. They were asking about it being morally right or wrong, the amounts have

nothing to do with the question.

[Selatius]

35. Well, you're free to hold to your beliefs, but I would say to most people

it wouldn't matter. The estate tax is not going anywhere as long as the federal government exists. It needs money, and it will get money to run programs from some avenue.

If the Republicans have their way, they will make the government get your money through a flat tax with no taxes on unearned income, so you will see the immoral rise of an ultra-wealthy aristocracy that will one day grow so powerful as to rival the power of the government itself.

For me, I'm fine with the 2,000,000 ceiling. I never saw it as anymore immoral than an income tax. If I have to give up everything so there is money to educate all our children, cure the sick, and help those weakest among us, I'd say the price is worth it.

[hfojvt]

81. why shouldn't the amounts matter

Is it morally the same for me to throw a cotton ball at you, a ping pong ball, a tennis ball, a baseball, a bowling ball, a cannon ball, etc.

You might as well say it is morally the same if Dives gives Lazarus a penny to ease his poverty, or if he gives a meal, or a home, etc. That quantity has nothing to do with morality.

[RB TexLa]

85. Do you count amounts when determining if murder or rape is morally

right or wrong too?

[elehhhhna]

111. Taxes, rape & murder? My , we are confused, aren't we?

[RB TexLa]

117. the person said amount matter in determine what is morally right

and wrong, I just wondered if they applied that to all moral questions.

[hfojvt]

131. In general we do

mass murder being more heinous than a single murder. Murder of a child, which takes away more potential life, being more heinous than murder of an adult.

[RB TexLa]

133. But that doesn't imply that the less heinous acts you mentioned

are morally right.

[hfojvt]

134. but that does not make them equally morally wrong either

as you said:
"None, it's as morally wrong to tax a $100M estate as it is a $100 one."

Which is just ridiculous since the one is nickel and diming, going after little people whereas the other is reducing the power of a monied aristocracy. And why would taxing be considered morally wrong at all? But you want to make the analogy of them raiding piggy banks in order to protect $100 million estates.

[RB TexLa]

135. So you believe the government should tax people to reduce their

power?

[ThomCat]

36. Yes.

Why should Paris Hilton get a million without paying taxes on it, while someone who works their ass of has to pay taxes on the same amount?

There is no moral reason not to tax inheritance.

[elehhhhna]

112. But but but... it might hurt the dead guys FEELINGS. It's not FAIR.

[Recursion]

100. Yes

My children wouldn't suddenly "deserve", in a moral sense, to be rich just because I was rich. So there's not really a moral angle to this, other than the basic problem that it's immoral for Trevor and Caitlin to not pay taxes when the people who broke their backs making that money for them are paying taxes (and FICA, etc., levies) the whole time.

[RB TexLa]

101. you honestly think your children should have to pay on $100?

that's tough.

[elehhhhna]

113. Let's reduce it further to the ridiculous and tax their penny. Oy.

[sandnsea]

160. I didn't earn the money

I just inherited a few thousand dollars (very few) from my dad. I don't see anything wrong if it had been taxed at my current income tax rate, or my siblings' current rates for them. We didn't earn the money, my dad did. He earned most of it after he started collecting social security so most of it was exempt from tax when he earned it to begin with. Nobody paid tax on any of it, that I know of. The only exception should be if it's a family business that is the basis of a current relative's income.

[elehhhhna]

110. Why do we tax the crap out of WAGES but not windfalls and investments?

Where's the moral argument there?

[RB TexLa]

116. to encourage investment

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. Hogsnot. It's no less morally wrong to tax a person's income.

Government is here to serve the needs of the citizenry. The citizenry gets to decide how to pay for it. If the citizenry considers it more fair to tax the estates of dead people, that's the new 'fair'.

[slackmaster]

7. As long as it's indexed to inflation I could live with $2 million

At $1 million it would affect my family.

We are not now nor have we ever been members of the class of people the ET was originally intended to tax.

[Herman Munster]

11. I would propose something like this

$1 million exempt
$1 million to $2 million taxed at capital gain tax rates of 15% (probably higher in the future as the deficit bankrupts us)
$2 million+ taxed at the current rate, what is it 55%?

[Sammy Pepys]

8. A very generous one....

I actually don't have a problem with $10M a couple.

[OzarkDem]

9. Whatever it was in the 1960's adjusted for inflation

That's better than the current minimum wage.

Its becoming boring and tiresome to keep rehashing tax policies for wealthy people that have been working just fine for the last 50 yrs or so.

No need to re-invent the wheel.

[annabanana]

10. from what I've read..

The tax is only on the first x million.. all the rest of them are gravy..

(please link your stuff...)

[Herman Munster]

16. check this out

http://www.smartmoney.com/tax/homefamily/index.cfm?story=estatetax

[Touchdown]

15. If conservatives were honest, then 100% above 5 mil.

How can those kids born into riches ever learn what it takes to "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, have a good idea, and work hard, and the American dream can be yours. blah, blah, balh" if they're coddled and given everything they want because they're living off of their family's and Capitalism's teat? Inheritances only teach rich kids how to be LAZY.

BTW: I'd say $2 Million, with a "productive property" IE. Farm, factory, retail, etc. exemption. The smaller Hearst Castles should be part of that value. They don't manufacture or graze clorinated water from their 4 pools.

[LiberalFighter]

21. Let's solve the problem this way for good

Let the dead person take the money with them. That way the ones that would had received it won't be getting something they never earned.

[elehhhhna]

114. If they could, they would.

[Finder]

22. Double taxation is double taxation. Never fair. n/t

[ThomCat]

27. That's a crock.

Every dollar get's taxes repeatedly.

Your company was taxed on their revenue (hopefully). Then you were taxed on the portion of it that was paid to you. Then you pay sales taxes, utility taxes and surcharges, and all kinds of other taxes when you spend it.

Every dollar gets taxed repeatedly. This idea that double taxation is wrong is a total crock, and if we removed double taxation our entire economy would collapse.

[Common Sense Party]

42. Well, then we should have triple taxation! Quadruple! Quintuple!

The more the merrier, I say!

The government needs more money, so why don't we tax every dollar 25 times, and call it a day?

Or let's tax income at 75% and inheritance at 100%.

Ridiculous? Of course.

But where would YOU draw the line? How much is too much?

[ThomCat]

47. Everything is rediculous when taken to an extreme.

That doesn't mean it's rediculous when managed at a reasonable level.

If we go by your apparent argument that money should only be taxed once then when do you tax it? Only the first time it's given to someone after it leaves the mint? That would be truly absurd.

Do you not tax a corporation for earning the money because the person who spent it on that corporation's services already paid taxes on it?

Do you pay no income tax at all because your company already paid taxes on it?

The only fair and equitable way to manage taxes is to have each person pay taxes each time the money changes hands. When you get it, you pay taxes on it. When you give it to someone else, they pay taxes on it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

136. You do.

A dollar is taxed every time it changes hands. For an old one, I imagine that can easily be hundreds, although I don't know how long a dollar bill lasts for.

What is taxed, in general, is *transactions*, not *things* (although there are exceptions).

The person inheriting the wealth has not paid any tax on it themself.

[Finder]

102. You do not understand the tax system. Fed and State are different...

Companies are taxed on their profit(after paying employees).

The estate tax debate is about Federal taxation.

I agree there are some excise taxes that could be considered double taxation though.

[rfranklin]

29. The inheritors never paid tax on that money and they did not...

"earn" it. They are receiving a gift or income and it should be taxed just as wages and salary are taxed.

[RB TexLa]

34. So all the free housing, food and education my family paid for

I should have to pay taxes on because I didn't "earn" it? Damn

[ThomCat]

38. When it was their income, your parents paid taxes on it.

When it becomes your income then you should pay taxes on it. That's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

[RB TexLa]

41. So housing, food, education should be taxed when it becomes

theirs? A $9,000 tuition bill is paid what percent should they have to pay in taxes on it?



When it was their income, your parents paid taxes on it. When it becomes your income then you should pay taxes on it. That's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

[ThomCat]

44. No. Income is taxed.

I think you're being deliberately argumentative.

[RB TexLa]

49. and you deliberately didn't answer n/t

[ThomCat]

51. Yes I did.

If you only tax income then your question is rediculous. You don't tax education or anything else. You only tax income.

"No. You only tax income." is a direct answer and did answer your question. You're being deliberately ignorant and argumentative.

[RB TexLa]

53. But if someone pays for education for me that is income

that is something of value that has come to me. Just as if they had died and I took the money and paid for a semester of education.

There is no reason to become degrading.

[ThomCat]

57. Education is a service, not an income.

If your parents paid for it with their income then they paid taxes on that income. If you pay for your education then you paid taxes on your income. Either way, tax was paid on whatever income paid for your education.

Duh!

[RB TexLa]

61. But you are saying that after they are dead it doesn't matter that

they paid taxes on their income as it does when they are alive? If they give the money for something while I'm alive you said they "paid taxes on that income," but you don't hold that to be true after they are dead?

[ThomCat]

63. Who is spending the money?

If they spent the money then they pay the tax on it. For you to spend their money they have to give it to you. They paid taxes on it when it was theirs, and you pay taxes on it when it becomes yours.

[elehhhhna]

118. and then you pay tax on the stuff you BUY with that inheritance

oh the humanity
















lol

[Selatius]

59. That still has nothing to do with taxes on income

If you inherited 1.5 million dollars, none of that would be taxed, and that would be FAR more than enough to bankroll your education through Harvard. You confuse education with income.

[RB TexLa]

62. If someone pays for education for you that is income

if you are working for a company and they pay for it, the value of it will be taxable. You have received something of value. I had also included housing and food.

[ThomCat]

65. No, it is not income. It is a service you received.

If services were considered income then you would have to pay tax every time your parents fed you a meal. Services are only taxed if you pay for them, and then the taxes are paid by whomever paid for the service, not by the person who received it.

[RB TexLa]

69. So you think if an employer paid for your house, for meals, for an

accreditation class or a continuing education class none of that would be taxable income to you because those are services?


So if someone were to use money they inherited to only by meals say for a couple of million people then they would be being provided a "service" by their late parents and would not have to pay the estate tax on any of it?

[Selatius]

68. You are taking things to the extreme here.

If I had a son and paid his way through college, the money given to my son is not taxed for the fact that he is MY "dependent" under federal law, which confers certain legal privileges and exemptions. Dependent exists as a legal term precisely for this reason. When I die, the legal definition changes because "dependent" would no longer apply to my son because the law recognizes you can't be dependent upon somebody who is dead.

That is where the inheritance tax comes in, and that is why you are confusing the two by trying to connect them.

[RB TexLa]

70. Because once someone dies they no longer want their childen to have

what they worked for, right?

[Selatius]

74. What does that have to do with what I just said???

[RB TexLa]

77. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the law on this

While one is alive they can work hard, invest wisely and provide all they want for their children or nephews and nieces, but once they are dead they are only going to be allowed to provide so much.

Then you get arguments from people that X amount of money is enough for anyone, but if it is enough for anyone after their parents are dead why is there not a law to prevent someone from spending X amount on them while they are alive?

[Selatius]

80. Not true, you cannot claim your son or daughter as a dependent after they

reach the age of 24. You can no longer claim them as a dependents. They are then treated the same under the law that you would be treated.

[ThomCat]

89. You're wasting your time.

He has has this same exact discussion several times in the past, with virtually the same comments and posts over and over again. He will play the ignorant devil's advocate until you're disgusted and give up. He's not looking for information or explanations. He's using passive-agressive tactics to drive his wacked out financial perspective down people's throats.

I should have paid attention to who I was talking to sooner and saved myself some time.

[RB TexLa]

90. only advocating what I think to be right

just because you disagree with someone you don't have to insult and degrade them.

[Selatius]

103. That's true, but one shouldn't ignore the facts either

"While one is alive they can work hard, invest wisely and provide all they want for their children or nephews and nieces, but once they are dead they are only going to be allowed to provide so much."

If your son or daughter was 24 or older, they have to declare that as income on their taxes. It is not tax-free, as you imply, which renders your argument moot. There is a reason why FAFSA forms say you don't use your parents tax returns when you are 24, and it is because you are no longer considered a dependent of your parents. At that point, any money you are given from your parents is subject to tax unless all of your annual income for the year is below poverty level.

[RB TexLa]

106. ok, then add "while they are dependant minors"

While one is alive they can work hard, invest wisely and provide all they want for their children or nephews and nieces while they are minors, but once they are dead they are only going to be allowed to provide so much.

[Selatius]

157. Sorry, but post facto justifications aren't things I recognize as legitima

You're simply shifting your previous position in this case after I already made my argument.

[elehhhhna]

119. For gosh sakes the Fed doesn't confiscate the whole dammned amount.

Do you have a wealthy MIL or something? Are you a millionaire raising layablut children? What? Why is this subject so emotional for you?

[RB TexLa]

122. I have displayed no emotions

What is a "MIL"? I do not raise children.

[elehhhhna]

127. MIL: Mother In law. Maybe not emotion as much a vehemence and

presenting exaggerated, illogical arguments. I read that as "worked up".

[RB TexLa]

128. anything my mother inlaw has would have nothing to do with me,

that would be my wife's business.


edit, sorry I repeated myself.

[Finder]

105. I do agree on taxing the individual inheritors but not the estate. n/t

[elehhhhna]

120. Best. Post. Ever.

[TahitiNut]

67. Total Fucking HORSESHIT!

[Recursion]

142. Double taxation is impossible

You keep acting like the money is a thing in itself, and gets taxed.

Money isn't taxed, transfers of it are. Almost every transfer of money in the entire economy is taxed; it's what pays for the social and legal overhead that make such transactions safe and trustworthy. I don't see why inheritance should be any different from any other transaction.

[Finder]

154. The recipient should be taxed, not the estate.IMO

[Recursion]

156. Sounds like the estate tax to me

Unless charitable bequests have suddenly started being taxed.

[n2doc]

32. The law is fine the way it stands, not including hte repuke changes

The 1 mil exemption is high enough to leave most estates untaxed, and the rest will still have enough after taxes that they can keep their farms, or main house, etc. ,etc. One would think from the crap one hears that it is a 100% tax. It is not.

[Balbus]

33. Currently, with all the loopholes in the tax system, it doesn't matter

where the exemption level is set. Any account worth their salt is able to prevent any taxes being taken from inheritance with the current tax laws the way they are.

[LSK]

37. $1million then 50% tax after that

[bvar22]

40. James Carville said it best!

When I die, my kids are gonna get $2Million Dollars (each?).
If they can't make it on THAT, they don't deserve ANYTHING! :)

[Cleita]

45. To tell the truth five million is peanuts these days.

Also, where does this couple thing come in? Do they die together? I mean if the property is community property half of the estate that belongs to the surviving spouse shouldn't be taxed, should it? So taxing all assets of the deceased after five million seems okay to me. Any money on top of that is excess anyway and most of the wealthy will already have moved the bulk of their money into living trusts, annuities and other tax dodges so they probably won't pay estate taxes anyway.

I would rather see the income generated from the assets be taxed with a flat, straight tax with no loopholes, instead. This way the income generated from living trusts would be taxed as well and when the assets are liquidated, capital gains taxes would kick in. Right now there are too many loopholes around these types of income that need to be addressed.

[Gormy Cuss]

58. With few exceptions, those who leave a 5M estate inherited most of it

or paid less effective tax on earnings accumulated in life. You are correct that many in that asset category have moved money around long before they die.

The only problem with the inheritance tax for me is that the permanent code needs to index the threshold to avoid hitting the average family farm/small business/high cost state estates. Beyond that, I view it as a better revenue source than taxing lower wage earners who can't afford tax accountants and tax lawyers to find loopholes.

Meanwhile, let's not forget that no one is talking about indexing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT,) a tax bite that will reach far more Americans in the next few years than the estate tax.

[Cleita]

86. Indeed, there is a lot of stuff to look at and reform. n/t

[NashVegas]

72. Oh God. Can I Have Some of Those Peanuts? Please?

$5 million may be peanuts to Donald Trump, but to the overwhelming majority of Americans, its 5 times or more over what we will make in our lifetimes.

[Cleita]

88. Conservatively you can make an income of about

$200,000 a year from an investment of five million (think CDs and safe bonds). Yes, it would be wonderful for me and you. However, really it's peanuts when you look at the money our millionaires and billionaires have.

I once went for a job interview (I didn't get the job) for the Doheney family in Beverly Hills (oil fortune). They have a three story office building full of employees, mostly lawyers, accountants and office workers who do nothing all day except manage the family's personal fortune. The businesses they were involved in were managed separately, so you can imagine what the personal fortune is of this extended family that they need a company sized staff to manage it.

[Nimrod2005]

48. a $10 million exemption is being floated, I am ok with that...nt

[Rosemary2205]

55. estate should be taxed as it's being liquidated and spent

If I sell my P&G stock to buy Microsoft stock I lose some of my money in capital gains taxes.

The main reason why the estate tax was instituted in the first place was because the ultra wealthy found loopholes and created new financial instruments to get around paying taxes. The trusts set up are able to buy and sell various investments without being subject to tax. Paris Hilton can liquidate everything she inherits and buy real estate and the money has never been taxed ever. Not even capital gains taxes.

IMHO leave the estate tax alone. It's was created for a damn good reason that is still valid.

[warbustdotcom]

56. Let them keep their money

Why can't they just be allowed to keep their money?

[B2G]

60. Because

the government wants it dammit!

Double taxation is completely unfair. These are not just rich kids getting handed money for free. This has a negative impact on families with small businesses everywhere.

Abolish the Inheritance Tax althogether.

[Rosemary2205]

66. Nearly all estate money was never taxed.

let alone double taxed.

[warbustdotcom]

71. and your point would be.....

Does it really matter? Don't get me wrong here, I'm not a conservative by any means, I voted for Gore and Kerry. But why can't they keep their money? It's theirs. They're not evil because they inherited money.

[Ron Green]

75. It's good for 'em to get out and earn their own.

Andrew Carnegie knew this.

[warbustdotcom]

84. lol ok

yeah ummm ok....Is the GW talkin? Get back to ruining our country if it is you. You only have two more years to screw things up.

[Ron Green]

95. Hell, if GW had to really earn his own money, he'd be working in a

pawn shop today. It's people like him that want to eliminate the "death tax." You don't agree with him, do you?

[warbustdotcom]

97. Why do you want to..

keep the death tax? Because rich people are evil? If that is your motive for not wanting the death tax, you are a unwise Democrat.

You need better motives for keeping it, other than because you don't like them rich people.

What other reasons are there for keeping a death tax, other than for hateful and vengeful reasons?

[w4rma]

107. You sound like a broken record.

A) Charities get a huge proportion of their funding through the estate tax.
B) People should work, not leach off of America.
C) The estate tax only affects slightly under 9,000 American families, currently.
D) I oppose aristocracies and oppose efforts to create and maintain aristocracies through making it easier for the wealthy to keep their money and harder for the non-wealthy to make their money.

Our nation's founding fathers opposed aristocracies, also. They rebelled against King George and won (with much cost). The laws that our country is founded upon were built to do everything possible to prevent another aristocracy from taking over our country. They even set limits on how long a buisness could remain incorporated (20 years maximum) to prevent any single group of people from gaining too much power over other Americans.

E) I oppose expanding conglomerations of power over Americans.

[elehhhhna]

125. F)They made a War and a deficit. that must be paid for

[w4rma]

126. Great point. (nt)

[Ron Green]

109. People who make lots of money in our society ought to pay their way.

There are several ways of redistributing wealth:

1. The Church - supposed to move it from the rich to the poor, but doesn't always work that way.
2. The Market - almost always moves it from the poor to the rich.
3. The State - can go either way. My view is that it should take from the rich and give to the poor. If the rich can't handle that, let them make laws to give more to the rich. Oh, wait... they did that already.

[elehhhhna]

124. taxes are hateful and vengeful? what do you call our deficit?

loving and givng?

[elehhhhna]

123. Why can't I keep my gross earned income? It's mine. I'm not evil

because I worked and got paid.

[elehhhhna]

121. Got links for this one?

"This has a negative impact on families with small businesses everywhere."

[Beaverhausen]

78. Because that is how aristocracies are born

I have to pay taxes on money I make that I WORK to earn. Why shouldn't people have to pay taxes on money that they DON'T lift a finger to earn?

[warbustdotcom]

87. good point but

Here's the deal! This is why us Democrats lose elections

When we stand up for things like an estate tax, we argue in favor of it, by saying things like this! We sound vengeful and upset because there are people richer than us. So we say, lets tax them and get back at them!

We make it sound like someone is evil just because they came across some money.

Instead we should come up with less mean sounding reasons for wanting an estate tax.

[KAZ]

153. Yeah, "us" Demecrats lose because we stand up for...

...what we beleive in. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this crap. Enjoy your stay Mr. Warbust.

[lumberjack_jeff]

137. Because coffins are not big enough for all the $100 bills. n/t

[KAZ]

152. Skinner please save this board.

It's getting boring.

[TahitiNut]

Divide by 20, apply individual wage&salary tax rate.

Alternatively, the estate could be annuitized over a 5, 10, or 20-year period, with the ownership transferred over that period in equal parts and taxed at ordinary (wage and salary) rates.


It's fucking insane to tax income from one's own labor at the highest rates, tax income from the labor of others (dividends and captial gains) at half those rates, and tax income from the death of another (estate taxes) at the lowest possible rates.

If Daddy actually employs Paris, she gets taxed on the income. If he dies, she doesn't get taxed. Just what kind of sense does that make?

We're one step away from taxing labor to provide direct income for the aristocrats.

[NashVegas]

73. Whaddyamean One Step Away

We're already there, TN. Sad, ain't it?

[TahitiNut]

83. (grin) I didn't want to sound alarmist.

It's pitiful, actually ... the 'trickle down' is from the US Treasury into the off-shore bank accounts of the wealthy. The ordinary working American has about 70-75% of the value of his/her labor confiscated by the 'ownership elite.' It's Plantation America, Inc.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

64. 100%. You don't need it when you're gone

With exceptions for burial expenses, and free transfer to your spouse. Possibly additional exceptions for the deceased with minor children, to get them through school/college etc.

When you are gone, your earthy possessions should go to society to feed and house the folks who are alive and need it.

No one should get a free ride just because your father is rich.

[RB TexLa]

92. If no one should get a "free ride because your father is rich"

Then you would not allow a living parent to spend money above a certain amount on their children while they are minors?

[Freedom_Aflaim]

140. Thats a different topic but a good point

Of course we are discussing inheritance taxes, but that doesnt mean that the rich folks won't benefit in other ways.

Gift taxes (which are actualy a subset of inheritance taxes), free college tuition and free medical care would go a long way towards giving every an equal shot.

[Zynx]

98. Yeah, wealth confiscation is a real winner. *rolls eyes*

[Freedom_Aflaim]

139. Well its proably not a winner

The question was not was is it politically feasable. I know this would not go over with a conservative house/senate etc.

The question is what is fair.

Why should anyone get a head start for being born in the right family?

[savemefromdumbya]

76. Your state will become a tax haven like the Cayman Islands!

Just think all those millionaires will be heading your way from places where there is estate tax! Maybe they should thrown in no capital gains tax too? :evilgrin:

[HoosierBuff]

79. $2-5 Million -per heir-

I think that if you made the money, you can decided to pass on 'enough' for your heirs to live comfortably.

I don't like the limits on what one person could give out. . the $1million per individual is like $50K a person in a large family. . .and the govt gets the rest? that ain't right.

[trogdor]

82. A cool mil sounds good to me.

That is, with certain classes of estate property exempted, like family farms, small businesses up to 3 million per estate (indexed), and primary residences (regardless of size). That kills about all the right wing's favorite bullshit talking points.

[sendero]

91. I'd like to live in a meritocracy...

... which the bleating Repukes are always bleating about. How is being born into a rich family a "merit". I'll do a better job of picking my parents next time.

[ElboRuum]

93. To treat money that comes in as INCOME...

And tax it as such. Making the distinction between earned and unearned income has always been the rich man's dodge, its about time we stopped making the distinction.

Capital Gains? Meh. That's income.
Wages? Income.
Inheritance? Income.

You'd see a lot less favoritism to the rich if their 'investor classifications' were in the same taxation categories as our wages because, in order to get their tax breaks, they'd have to give breaks to everyone else.

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. Fair to me?

100% of everything over $100.

I'm not inheriting anything. The question you should ask me is how much I consider a fair amount of income tax to pay in order to mitigate your (the generic "you") desire to inherit someone else's earnings tax free.

No free lunch, every dollar that is not collected in inheritance taxes must be paid by those who only expect to "inherit" a paycheck.

[Recursion]

99. I'd go for a deal that exempted it completely from income tax

If the other side of that were that capital gains, as well as all earned income (not just up to a cap) were subject to FICA and Medicaire levies.

[w4rma]

104. It was the drop in the percentage rate, which you don't mention, that

killed the bill.

[SammyWinstonJack]

115. All I know is that Paris Hilton and Casey Johnson deserve to pay

taxes on their inherited monies, since they clearly have no plans to contribute anything to society at large through obscene wealth that they clearly "earned" by name only. And on an aside, MTV Cribs makes me want to :puke: How do these Americans deserve/ need a tax cut? These people are clearly a solid reason for socialism! Greedy bastards!

[Sapere aude]

130. Wealth should not pile up in the hands of a few.

It sounds unfair to the wealthy but wealth should be distributed in such a way as the common good is served.

The reason the tax exists is to redistribute wealth.

Current repub tax law redistributes wealth from the middle and lower classes to the wealthy. We pay taxes and the spending goes to the wealthy.

We should tax inheritance so that wealth does not build up in the hands of the few but is redistributed to all.

I don't know how much that is in this era but since the wealthy already got a tax cut, I think to cut is more is criminal.

[NNadir]

141. I favor a 100% estate tax.

[MUSTANG_2004]

161. Really?

You don't even think that children should be allowed to inherit their parents' home or personal belongings?

[JackDragna]

143. Tax-free inheritance over 3 million, followed by..

..complete absolvement of the government of any value over 3 million.

[rug]

144. Peg it to the minimum wage and see how high it goes.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

145. Everything under a million should be exempt...

Everything over that should be taxed at 25%.
Duckie

[NC_Nurse]

148. Wait....

let me tell you after I win the Powerball lottery tonight....:D
Just kiddin', of course!

[Warren DeMontague]

149. Wow. These threads really bring out some bitter sounding people.

Honestly, I wonder if the "screw the greedy, selfish little heirs" crowd has ever stopped to consider that when they go on about "taxing 100% everything over $100" and how these silver-spoon snots are "making off with money they never earned" maybe they're talking about the house a family has lived in for generations. Maybe they're talking about a family farm. Or a family business.

Screw 'em, right? Give the money to the government.. which, by the way, never "earned" it, either.

I guess that's where I get off the boat with some so-called "progressives". I don't believe that the function of taxation is to simply to punish wealthy people, nor is the function of government to determine who "deserves" to have money or not. I believe that the function of taxation is to pay for needed services. But, honestly? If we could pay for a SPHC system, if we could pay for decent schools and a good social safety net, (and if we could STOP paying for some of the absurd shit we currently do, like no-bid billion dollar giveaways to Halliburton) then past that point I don't CARE if some people are ridiculously, even obscenely wealthy. (For the record, I also don't think people who make under, say, $30K a year should be paying taxes at all. I'm all for shifting that burden upward) Even though I spent half of my adult life working for near-minimum wage, I don't have any need to "put those people in their place" just because they're rich. Sorry. I don't believe in wealth redistribution just for the fun of it.

I happen to think that the exemption on the Estate tax ought to be raised, permanently, because I don't think anyone ought to be in a position of having to sell their family home or business to pay an estate tax. I think the tax would make more sense on amounts over $3 million, or over $5 million. Although that money is being taxed twice, I don't believe the tax should be abolished wholesale.

I also would be more enthusiastic about this kind of thing, in general, if huge amounts of money weren't going to outright brutal, wasteful things like the Iraq war, or a prison-industrial complex incarcerating ever-increasing numbers of non-violent offenders.

[Karenca]

162. "maybe they're talking about the house a family has lived in for genera-

tions".
It's not always as it appears.

Or what about a single mom who struggled her entire
life
to insure her children were left with a
sense of some financial security. The choice
should
be her decision, not the government's.


I totally agree with what you said.

[1932]

150. Taxed at my personal rates, progressively, no exemptions.

[Karmadillo]

151. Paul Newman calls the esttate tax "one of the fairest taxes we have."

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2182

<edit>

Paul Newman, actor and founder of Newman’s Own food company, agreed in a separate statement: “For those of us lucky enough to be born in this country and to have flourished here, the estate tax is a reasonable and appropriate way to return something to the common good. I’m proud to be among those supporting preservation of this tax, which is one of the fairest taxes we have.”

[Nikia]

155. An estate tax is important for a couple of reasons

It generates a large amount of tax revenue that would have to be made up in another way like increasing income taxes across the board.
IT also encourages charitable giving to reduce the amount that would be taxed.

[cushla_machree]

159. I'll let go of the estate tax

When i don't have to pay taxes on all those lottery winnings i have.

[hyphenate]

163. I think that any inheritance

over $50,000 should be taxed, and on a sliding scale. Anything up to $250,000 would be one rate, and exponentially larger as the amount increases. However, if the original taxpayer paid taxes on it before his or her death, the taxable difference for the inheritor should be all that is taxed for the inheritor. Either that, or the original taxpayer's estate should be credited the tax and then the inheritor should be taxed the full amount on any amount of $50,000 or more. Some say that doesn't make sense, but if there are multiple inheritors, it makes a lot of sense, and if the estate is worth a very large amount, the full tax on the amount will be able to be assessed, as the original owner might have managed to pay less taxes through loopholes.

[whosinpower]

164. I HAVE THE PERFECT SOLUTION!!!!!!!!

Index the estate tax exemption to minimum wage standards.....what is that.....$10700/year.

There you go.
The millionaires would be busily and frantically spending their money.....
which would pump up the economy to levels we have never seen.....

I think it is brilliant.
Who is with me???

Everyone should have to earn their riches. No free rides. period.