Death Tax

[Burp]

And my primary point on this is that you haven't defended the death tax. You have merely stated that it affects very few people and is therefore allright because you aren't one of them. Gay marriage right affect very few people why do you care about that?

What the government does spending wise outside of infrastructure and defense is largely poorly done usually causes more problems than it solves and polarizes people along socio-economic lines.

You haven't given one single decent reason for taxing money left to someone's heirs which after all is only what's left after they paid taxes for forty or fifty years. The closest you've gotten is the spurious notion that somehow the heirs don't deserve it and that isn't your damn business or mine.

Maybe you didn't read the thread. There have been several reason put forth why it doesn't make sense that workers have to pay higher taxes so that trust fund babies can inheiret millions and pay no tax. Rewarding meritocracy, fairness, encouraging productive activity, rewarding the workers instead idle rich, taxing property that has never been taxed.

I've yet to see one argument why working folk should pay higher taxes so the Parises can inherit hundreds of millions tax free.

Maybe YOU didn't read the thread.

Where did I say any of that?

 

[Iriemon]

So basically everyone who "believes" in the death tax feels that it is ok for government to raise and lower taxes at will? This year, above 3.5 million - next year, above 1 million.

The government could just as easily raise your payroll tax from, say, 15-20% to 40%? Would that be acceptable to you?

Irrelevant. We are discussing whether an inheritance tax makes sense, not about whether the Govt should change tax rates.

I'd suppose you didn't complain about Govt changing taxes when the proposal was to cut taxes amd eliminate the estate tax.

Let's stop and think for a minute. It's easy to talk about Paris Hilton and the like. But that isn't a fair comparison.

Of course it is. You can't talk about a tax policy and then say its unfair to point out that the Paris Hiltons will be getting hundreds of millions tax free.

There were posts earlier from people who said they wouldn't take a dime from their parents because they didn't "earn" it. Also a post about if someone didn't "earn" the money, then they don't deserve it.

For those who feel this way:

Straw man. I didn't see one poster who said they felt that way.

You were fortunate enough to win the lotto or hit the $8,000,000.00 progressive slot - you would turn it down because you didn't "earn" it? Walk away and say "no?"

You are ok with the government taking another cut of your winnings?

And who here that works for a living thinks they should pay higher taxes so the lotto winner can get that $8 million tax free?

Trust fund babies are the lotto winners. I frankly see no reason why a person who works should pay higher taxes so the "lotto winners" don't have to pay any. To the contrary.

 

[Yurt]

And my primary point on this is that you haven't defended the death tax. You have merely stated that it affects very few people and is therefore allright because you aren't one of them. Gay marriage right affect very few people why do you care about that?

What the government does spending wise outside of infrastructure and defense is largely poorly done usually causes more problems than it solves and polarizes people along socio-economic lines.

You haven't given one single decent reason for taxing money left to someone's heirs which after all is only what's left after they paid taxes for forty or fifty years. The closest you've gotten is the spurious notion that somehow the heirs don't deserve it and that isn't your damn business or mine.

Maybe you didn't read the thread. There have been several reason put forth why it doesn't make sense that workers have to pay higher taxes so that trust fund babies can inheiret millions and pay no tax. Rewarding meritocracy, fairness, encouraging productive activity, rewarding the workers instead idle rich, taxing property that has never been taxed.

I've yet to see one argument why working folk should pay higher taxes so the Parises can inherit hundreds of millions tax free.

strawman....

who said workers have to pay more taxes so the rich do not. that has nothing to do with the argument. if government can't survive on that budget, then cut spending. it is illogical to presume that if you don't tax the rich you must tax the poor or middle class more...cutting spending is more logical and sound fiscal policy...

if you the middle class doesn't like it, they have the numbers to vote in different politicians, simple really

 

[Iriemon]

You were fortunate enough to win the lotto or hit the $8,000,000.00 progressive slot - you would turn it down because you didn't "earn" it? Walk away and say "no?"

Why would I be gambling if I didn’t want the money? And gambling involves risk, effort, and talent. There is no risk, effort, nor talent needed to inherit monies. Just what are you trying to compare?

How about the risk, effort and talent I "used" to earn it in the first place?

When did I pay tax on it?

When you earned it.

This isn't that difficult. Don't focus on who gets the money.

Focus on the fact that the government is taxing the money twice. Focus on the fact that you set out to leave a legacy to your children, and your children's children.

You want their legacy to be 100% of your hard work, not 45% (or whatever the perecentage ends up being when you die) of it.

All money is taxed twice and more. Money paid to me for work has been taxed twice. The person inhereting the money never paid a tax on it.

 

[Iriemon]

That is the second time.

It is taxed when it is earned the first time.

You get $20 million. You pay taxes on it. You leave it to someone else. They pay taxes on it. This seems to be a problem for you, and I have no idea why. Income is income, no matter how you get it. Money is taxed infinitely...but the person receiving the money is only taxed one time.

My point is why should "they" have to pay on it again? It isn't how many people receive it, it's how many times it taxed.

Again, I want to leave 100% to my heirs, not a percentage because the government has their hand out.

Too bad. I want to receive 100% of the money I earn, and not pay a higher tax so your kids inherit millions tax free.

 

[Iriemon]

burp,

i paid taxes on my income, then invested my taxed already income in ''something'' that made me more money than my original investment....let's say i bought a $20,000 CD paying 5% interest on my already taxed money and it made me $1000 bucks in interest that year.

I have to pay taxes now on that thousand dollars that i made off of my already taxed income. The $1000 dollars would be recorded and reported to the IRS on form 1099 INT and added to my income earned working and I would be taxed on it.

THIS IS HOW TAXES WORK my dear.

I agree 100% to this scenario. But this isn't what I'm talking about. Once that money is taxed, it should be taxed again just because I die (yes, I know it's clearly under the threshold - I'm just using that as an example - if you can't grasp this idea, change the dollar amounts)

There would be no problem if they changed the estate tax for an inheritance tax. I think that would make more sense.

The folks pushing to kill the "death" tax are not proposing it be replaced by an inheretance tax tho.

 

[PeterS]

Your risk, effort, and talent is mine? How commie socialist of you...




Huh? When did I earn it?



When did I pay taxes on it twice?



So leaving them millionaires isn't a legacy?



Why? The end result is that my children would be millionaires. If I intended my legacy, as shallow as that is, to be that. Haven't I succeeded?

You seem to have a hard time following along. My remarks were in response to yours.

I am following you just fine--including the part where you duck every question I pose. You clearly do not understand that your money no longer is yours when it is placed in your childs hands. You also do not seem to grasp the fact that, just as you, your children have an obligation to pay taxes on moneys they receive. Every dollar is taxed as it changes hands. So what. How does this constitute some form of injustice especially given the fact that the end result is your children will end up as one of the top wealth holders in this nation? And you wonder how this is shallow?

If your intent is to change opinions you have a better chance when some actual injustice is done. When the taxes you pay does nothing to lower your quality of life there is no injustice and the only thing you are showing is how little you have to give no matter how high you manage to stack your piles of gold...

 

[Iriemon]

And my primary point on this is that you haven't defended the death tax. You have merely stated that it affects very few people and is therefore allright because you aren't one of them. Gay marriage right affect very few people why do you care about that?

What the government does spending wise outside of infrastructure and defense is largely poorly done usually causes more problems than it solves and polarizes people along socio-economic lines.

You haven't given one single decent reason for taxing money left to someone's heirs which after all is only what's left after they paid taxes for forty or fifty years. The closest you've gotten is the spurious notion that somehow the heirs don't deserve it and that isn't your damn business or mine.

Maybe you didn't read the thread. There have been several reason put forth why it doesn't make sense that workers have to pay higher taxes so that trust fund babies can inheiret millions and pay no tax. Rewarding meritocracy, fairness, encouraging productive activity, rewarding the workers instead idle rich, taxing property that has never been taxed.

I've yet to see one argument why working folk should pay higher taxes so the Parises can inherit hundreds of millions tax free.

strawman....

who said workers have to pay more taxes so the rich do not. that has nothing to do with the argument. if government can't survive on that budget, then cut spending. it is illogical to presume that if you don't tax the rich you must tax the poor or middle class more...cutting spending is more logical and sound fiscal policy...

if you the middle class doesn't like it, they have the numbers to vote in different politicians, simple really

Not strawman but simple logic. If you eliminate taxes from one source another source is effectively paying more. Why not keep the estate tax and lower payroll taxes instead? To eliminate the estate tax means folks who pay payroll taxes don't get a break and are paying more.

The only strawman is refence to Govt spending. This debate isn't about government spending, but who should pay the tax.

 

[raceright]

Why would I be gambling if I didn’t want the money? And gambling involves risk, effort, and talent. There is no risk, effort, nor talent needed to inherit monies. Just what are you trying to compare?

How about the risk, effort and talent I "used" to earn it in the first place?

When did I pay tax on it?

When you earned it.

This isn't that difficult. Don't focus on who gets the money.

Focus on the fact that the government is taxing the money twice. Focus on the fact that you set out to leave a legacy to your children, and your children's children.

You want their legacy to be 100% of your hard work, not 45% (or whatever the perecentage ends up being when you die) of it.

All money is taxed twice and more. Money paid to me for work has been taxed twice. The person inhereting the money never paid a tax on it.

Jealousy Jealousy Jealousy thats all it is if you think a wealthy person who has paid more taxes and also paid your taxes for you as well as your SS and many other items still owes you and the rest of this country there is only one explanation for it your Jealous. Your
Parents and Grandparents could have acquired wealth so you could have a better life,so you think because someone Else's did they somehow owe you.. Thank God the people who do acquire enough wealth to be in the bracket were they will be required to pay the death tax are also smart enough to keep it to a minimum. (like me)

 

[Iriemon]

And my primary point on this is that you haven't defended the death tax. You have merely stated that it affects very few people and is therefore allright because you aren't one of them. Gay marriage right affect very few people why do you care about that?

What the government does spending wise outside of infrastructure and defense is largely poorly done usually causes more problems than it solves and polarizes people along socio-economic lines.

You haven't given one single decent reason for taxing money left to someone's heirs which after all is only what's left after they paid taxes for forty or fifty years. The closest you've gotten is the spurious notion that somehow the heirs don't deserve it and that isn't your damn business or mine.

Maybe you didn't read the thread. There have been several reason put forth why it doesn't make sense that workers have to pay higher taxes so that trust fund babies can inheiret millions and pay no tax. Rewarding meritocracy, fairness, encouraging productive activity, rewarding the workers instead idle rich, taxing property that has never been taxed.

I've yet to see one argument why working folk should pay higher taxes so the Parises can inherit hundreds of millions tax free.

Maybe YOU didn't read the thread.

Where did I say any of that?

I didn't claim you said any of it.

I said I've yet to see one decent argument why folks who work should pay higher taxes so trust fund babies can inherit hundreds of million tax free.

And still haven't.

 

[Iriemon]

How about the risk, effort and talent I "used" to earn it in the first place?



When you earned it.

This isn't that difficult. Don't focus on who gets the money.

Focus on the fact that the government is taxing the money twice. Focus on the fact that you set out to leave a legacy to your children, and your children's children.

You want their legacy to be 100% of your hard work, not 45% (or whatever the perecentage ends up being when you die) of it.

All money is taxed twice and more. Money paid to me for work has been taxed twice. The person inhereting the money never paid a tax on it.

Jealousy Jealousy Jealousy thats all it is if you think a wealthy person who has paid more taxes and also paid your taxes for you as well as your SS and many other items still owes you and the rest of this country there is only one explanation for it your Jealous. Your
Parents and Grandparents could have acquired wealth so you could have a better life,so you think because someone Else's did they somehow owe you.. Thank God the people who do acquire enough wealth to be in the bracket were they will be required to pay the death tax are also smart enough to keep it to a minimum. (like me)

Ad hom argument based on inaccurate presumption does not rebut anything.

But for the record, I am jealous that a special class should get a tax free status on money they get when I'm paying almost 40% marginal on mine. How do merit that special tax free status?

 

[Burp]

Maybe you didn't read the thread. There have been several reason put forth why it doesn't make sense that workers have to pay higher taxes so that trust fund babies can inheiret millions and pay no tax. Rewarding meritocracy, fairness, encouraging productive activity, rewarding the workers instead idle rich, taxing property that has never been taxed.

I've yet to see one argument why working folk should pay higher taxes so the Parises can inherit hundreds of millions tax free.

Maybe YOU didn't read the thread.

Where did I say any of that?

I didn't claim you said any of it.

I said I've yet to see one decent argument why folks who work should pay higher taxes so trust fund babies can inherit hundreds of million tax free.

And still haven't.

Perhaps you should start your own Paris Hilton and the Trust Fund Babies link then. They aren't who I am talking about.

Straw man. I didn't see one poster who said they felt that way

Post 19 and 23.

 

[PeterS]

It is my choice to leave it to them. My parents wanted me to be better off than they were - and I want the same for mine.

Your children are being left millionaires. They aren't better off?

My complaint is that I don't want the government to tax it twice.

So when you give your child 20 bucks to go the the movie you are unhappy because they paid sales tax...

And we aren't talking about $100.00. We are talking about everything over 3.5...and next year possibly everything over 1 million.

When did 55% become everything? Your math skills are a bit lacking here.

I will try again:

Forget the dollar amount. Answer this question:

Your grandparents give your parents $20,000.00. Your parents pay taxes on the amount over 13K - 7K.

That money sits in a box in their closet. Then your parents die. They leave that 7K to you.

For a moment, imagine that EVERYTHING passed to an heir is taxed. Would it be fair for the government to tax you on the 7K?

Taxes have already been paid on it - why would it be fair for you to pay taxes on it (the same 7k has now been taxed twice).

That concept is actually acceptable to you?

Why wouldn't it be? I never paid taxes on the money did I. You contention is that I should have no tax obligation because someone else had a tax obligation. This is nonsense.

 

[Iriemon]

Maybe YOU didn't read the thread.

Where did I say any of that?

I didn't claim you said any of it.

I said I've yet to see one decent argument why folks who work should pay higher taxes so trust fund babies can inherit hundreds of million tax free.

And still haven't.

Perhaps you should start your own Paris Hilton and the Trust Fund Babies link then. They aren't who I am talking about.

What I think I hear you saying is that you do support an inheretance/estate tax for the Paris Hiltons and trust fund babies.

Then the only question is what level of taxation on inheritance income is fair.

IMO, there is little argument for taxing labor at a higher rate than non-earned income. I think all income should be taxed at the same level.

I can see that because inheritance is a one shot deal and not a stream of income, it should be tax at a rate equivalent to as if it was a stream of income say for 10 or even years. That would increase the deduction on inheritance.

Straw man. I didn't see one poster who said they felt that way

Post 19 and 23.[/QUOTE]

OK, I'm corrected and retract.

 

[Agnapostate]

Can we address the utility issue? Does not equality of opportunity for a future generation provide significantly more utility than permitting the wealthy to continue to hoard, particularly when the dying generation isn't able to derive happiness (and therefore utility), after their deaths anyway?

 

[Iriemon]

Maybe YOU didn't read the thread.

Where did I say any of that?

I didn't claim you said any of it.

I said I've yet to see one decent argument why folks who work should pay higher taxes so trust fund babies can inherit hundreds of million tax free.

And still haven't.

Perhaps you should start your own Paris Hilton and the Trust Fund Babies link then. They aren't who I am talking about.

What I think I hear you saying is that you do support an inheretance/estate tax for the Paris Hiltons and trust fund babies.

Then the only question is what level of taxation on inheritance income is fair.

IMO, there is little argument for taxing labor at a higher rate than non-earned income. I think all income should be taxed at the same level.

I can see that because inheritance is a one shot deal and not a stream of income, it should be tax at a rate equivalent to as if it was a stream of income say for 10 or even years. That would increase the deduction on inheritance.

Straw man. I didn't see one poster who said they felt that way

Post 19 and 23.

OK, I'm corrected and retract.

 

[Yurt]

Maybe you didn't read the thread. There have been several reason put forth why it doesn't make sense that workers have to pay higher taxes so that trust fund babies can inheiret millions and pay no tax. Rewarding meritocracy, fairness, encouraging productive activity, rewarding the workers instead idle rich, taxing property that has never been taxed.

I've yet to see one argument why working folk should pay higher taxes so the Parises can inherit hundreds of millions tax free.

strawman....

who said workers have to pay more taxes so the rich do not. that has nothing to do with the argument. if government can't survive on that budget, then cut spending. it is illogical to presume that if you don't tax the rich you must tax the poor or middle class more...cutting spending is more logical and sound fiscal policy...

if you the middle class doesn't like it, they have the numbers to vote in different politicians, simple really

Not strawman but simple logic. If you eliminate taxes from one source another source is effectively paying more. Why not keep the estate tax and lower payroll taxes instead? To eliminate the estate tax means folks who pay payroll taxes don't get a break and are paying more.

The only strawman is refence to Govt spending. This debate isn't about government spending, but who should pay the tax.

so are you now dropping the government spending issue? i noticed you failed to address at all that spending shoudl be cut instead of merely taxing elsewhere...

it doesn't seem you are dropping the issue as you remain stuck in the "who should pay the tax" issue...that has nothing to do with death taxes, unless and only unless you remain rooted in the belief that without death taxes our country will fail. nonsense, cut spending. the argument that rich should pay it because they are rich is unequal...if you want to argue that, one could argue that spreading the tax out over millions of other tax payers is more fair, hypothetically speaking, instead of taxing one rich person for 1 million dollars, why not tax 1 million people 1 dollar....

 

[raceright]

All money is taxed twice and more. Money paid to me for work has been taxed twice. The person inhereting the money never paid a tax on it.

Jealousy Jealousy Jealousy thats all it is if you think a wealthy person who has paid more taxes and also paid your taxes for you as well as your SS and many other items still owes you and the rest of this country there is only one explanation for it your Jealous. Your
Parents and Grandparents could have acquired wealth so you could have a better life,so you think because someone Else's did they somehow owe you.. Thank God the people who do acquire enough wealth to be in the bracket were they will be required to pay the death tax are also smart enough to keep it to a minimum. (like me)

Ad hom argument based on inaccurate presumption does not rebut anything.

But for the record, I am jealous that a special class should get a tax free status on money they get when I'm paying almost 40% marginal on mine. How do merit that special tax free status?

First of all Jealousy is an evil emotion and only leads to disaster,
envy on the other hand means you are happy someone has something and wish you had it also..I can only guess that you are a employee somewhere as these are the most jealous class of people we have. If you went to college you are suppose to be smart and not just capable of earning a living but guess what it ain't so.

 

[Iriemon]

strawman....

who said workers have to pay more taxes so the rich do not. that has nothing to do with the argument. if government can't survive on that budget, then cut spending. it is illogical to presume that if you don't tax the rich you must tax the poor or middle class more...cutting spending is more logical and sound fiscal policy...

if you the middle class doesn't like it, they have the numbers to vote in different politicians, simple really

Not strawman but simple logic. If you eliminate taxes from one source another source is effectively paying more. Why not keep the estate tax and lower payroll taxes instead? To eliminate the estate tax means folks who pay payroll taxes don't get a break and are paying more.

The only strawman is refence to Govt spending. This debate isn't about government spending, but who should pay the tax.

so are you now dropping the government spending issue? i noticed you failed to address at all that spending shoudl be cut instead of merely taxing elsewhere...

I'm not "dropping" anything. Govt spending is irrelevant to who pays taxes.

it doesn't seem you are dropping the issue as you remain stuck in the "who should pay the tax" issue...that has nothing to do with death taxes,

So the issue of whether folks who inheirit billions should pay tax has nothing to do with who pays taxes.

That makes a lot of sense.

unless and only unless you remain rooted in the belief that without death taxes our country will fail. nonsense, cut spending. ...

Fine. Cut spending, keep the estate tax and give folks a break on their SS taxes. Happy now?

 

[Iriemon]

Jealousy Jealousy Jealousy thats all it is if you think a wealthy person who has paid more taxes and also paid your taxes for you as well as your SS and many other items still owes you and the rest of this country there is only one explanation for it your Jealous. Your
Parents and Grandparents could have acquired wealth so you could have a better life,so you think because someone Else's did they somehow owe you.. Thank God the people who do acquire enough wealth to be in the bracket were they will be required to pay the death tax are also smart enough to keep it to a minimum. (like me)

Ad hom argument based on inaccurate presumption does not rebut anything.

But for the record, I am jealous that a special class should get a tax free status on money they get when I'm paying almost 40% marginal on mine. How do merit that special tax free status?

First of all Jealousy is an evil emotion and only leads to disaster,
envy on the other hand means you are happy someone has something and wish you had it also..I can only guess that you are a employee somewhere as these are the most jealous class of people we have. If you went to college you are suppose to be smart and not just capable of earning a living but guess what it ain't so.

Fine crank up the inheretence tax to 90% and eliminate SS taxes and I won't be jealous.