HenryBHough
Diamond Member
Once liberalism is fully implemented there will be no need for a death tax as nobody will have any wealth to tax.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would prefer a 'wealth' tax rather than an income tax or sales tax, and an inheritance tax is a wealth tax- on someone who is no longer alive.
Equal under the law, general welfare.He didn't earn it, tax the shit out of it to even the playing field for those who were unlucky and born to poor parents.But the kid won the lottery by being born to those parents. The kid did nothing to deserve those parents. Are you saying kids of poverty stricken welfare mothers deserve it? Or simply lost the lottery.He's a lottery winner.
So. Their parent's or whoever left them the money....that money belonged to them....not the government, not you.....it is theirs to do with as they wish......you guys hate them because you are jealous....
The kid did nothing to deserve those parents.
So what?
He didn't earn it
The government didn't earn it.
tax the shit out of it to even the playing field for those who were unlucky and born to poor parents
Where in the Constitution does the government have the power to "even the playing field"?
There should never be an inheritance tax. The assets inherited were taxed when the decedent bought/used them. Some of them, like real property and in some states personal property, will be taxed when the inheritor uses/retains ownership of them. In the case of real property, business property and some personal property, when the inheritor sells it, s/he will be taxed federally on the gain on sale, thus taxed twice for the same property.
The only inherited assets that are double taxed are cash accounts. The others are usually appreciated assets which avoid capital gains taxes through a stepped up cost basis for the beneficiaries. The only taxes they ever pay are for capital gains while they owned the assets, not during the life of the decedent. Thus the appreciation of these assets, if sold for their value when inherited, is never taxed.
If capital gains taxes were due upon inheritance, there would be no need for an inheritance tax. Even so, there are plenty of other ways for wealthy individuals to shield their estates from taxes. Private foundations, anyone?
Thus the appreciation of these assets, if sold for their value when inherited, is never taxed.
Income taxes were already paid on the money used to buy the stock.
Do you understand capital gains? I may have paid $10 per share (with after-tax money*), but it is now worth $100 per share. If I sell it, I pay capital gains tax on the $90 gain. If my beneficiaries sell it, they pay no tax on that gain.
*Pre-tax accounts are never taxed at all upon inheritance.
Equal under the law, general welfare.
Equal under the law, general welfare.He didn't earn it, tax the shit out of it to even the playing field for those who were unlucky and born to poor parents.But the kid won the lottery by being born to those parents. The kid did nothing to deserve those parents. Are you saying kids of poverty stricken welfare mothers deserve it? Or simply lost the lottery.So. Their parent's or whoever left them the money....that money belonged to them....not the government, not you.....it is theirs to do with as they wish......you guys hate them because you are jealous....
The kid did nothing to deserve those parents.
So what?
He didn't earn it
The government didn't earn it.
tax the shit out of it to even the playing field for those who were unlucky and born to poor parents
Where in the Constitution does the government have the power to "even the playing field"?
In all of the discourse over income inequality, there has not been much focus on inherited wealth. I just read Bernie Sanders 13 point plan for income redistribution. Here is what he proposed for a Federal inheritance tax:
"He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million."
To me that seems a rather high bar for money that was "not earned". If you are tapping that income pool, why would you not go after the much larger percentage of Americans that inherited, say, more than $1 million? Or less? Or is inherited money, under all circumstances, off limits? This is one area where I COULD support a new Federal tax.
IF and only IF it were possible to take Federal inheritance tax money and DIRECTLY use all of it for a specific purpose such as reduction of college tuition and/or skills training, I would support it. I would pick a low percentage, around 10% and a level of $1 million with specific language in the law that it NEVER increases in percentage or inheritance amount. No inflation or other adjustments allowed.
What do you think? Should the IRS tax code be modified to tax inherited money, and if so at what level, and what percentage and why? How would you ensure that the inheritance tax money DIRECTLY benefited the poor?
- There should never be an inheritance tax. The assets inherited were taxed when the decedent bought/used them. Some of them, like real property and in some states personal property, will be taxed when the inheritor uses/retains ownership of them. In the case of real property, business property and some personal property, when the inheritor sells it, s/he will be taxed federally on the gain on sale, thus taxed twice for the same property.
- .
This is a rather misleading statement. It suggests capital gains is "double taxation", which simply is not true.
- There should never be an inheritance tax. The assets inherited were taxed when the decedent bought/used them. Some of them, like real property and in some states personal property, will be taxed when the inheritor uses/retains ownership of them. In the case of real property, business property and some personal property, when the inheritor sells it, s/he will be taxed federally on the gain on sale, thus taxed twice for the same property.
- .
This is a rather misleading statement. It suggests capital gains is "double taxation", which simply is not true.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Let's consider a simple example. For simplicity, assume the inheritance tax rate is 20%.
I die and leave my home to my son. I bought the house for ~$2M. Over time, the home's value has increased to ~$6M. For the purposes of inheritance tax, the basis of the house to my son is $6M. My son will thus have to pay $220K in inheritance tax on the house. If he doesn't have $220K, he will have to sell the house and use the proceeds of the sale to pay the $220K. If my son sells the house for $6M, there is no gain on the sale. If he sells it for more than $6M, there will be a long term capital gain and he will pay capital gains tax on that gain at whatever be the capital gains tax rate at the time.The substance of that sequence of events is that my son is taxed on the house for the gain from $2M to $6M and he's taxed on the gain on the sale of the house if there is one. That's where the "taxed twice for the same property" comes in.
It is worth noting that estate taxes generally have an exemption, that absolves the first "$X" of value from the estate tax. I've left that out purely for simplicity. I don't know the specific sum of the exemption, but I think the federal exemption was last ~$5.4M.
As for the subjective conclusion one may draw from the event pattern noted above, I do not believe inheritors should be taxed on the inherited asset. I'm fine with inheritors being taxed on the gains from the sale of inherited assets.
- There should never be an inheritance tax. The assets inherited were taxed when the decedent bought/used them. Some of them, like real property and in some states personal property, will be taxed when the inheritor uses/retains ownership of them. In the case of real property, business property and some personal property, when the inheritor sells it, s/he will be taxed federally on the gain on sale, thus taxed twice for the same property.
- .
This is a rather misleading statement. It suggests capital gains is "double taxation", which simply is not true.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Let's consider a simple example. For simplicity, assume the inheritance tax rate is 20%.
I die and leave my home to my son. I bought the house for ~$2M. Over time, the home's value has increased to ~$6M. For the purposes of inheritance tax, the basis of the house to my son is $6M. My son will thus have to pay $220K in inheritance tax on the house. If he doesn't have $220K, he will have to sell the house and use the proceeds of the sale to pay the $220K. If my son sells the house for $6M, there is no gain on the sale. If he sells it for more than $6M, there will be a long term capital gain and he will pay capital gains tax on that gain at whatever be the capital gains tax rate at the time.The substance of that sequence of events is that my son is taxed on the house for the gain from $2M to $6M and he's taxed on the gain on the sale of the house if there is one. That's where the "taxed twice for the same property" comes in.
It is worth noting that estate taxes generally have an exemption, that absolves the first "$X" of value from the estate tax. I've left that out purely for simplicity. I don't know the specific sum of the exemption, but I think the federal exemption was last ~$5.4M.
As for the subjective conclusion one may draw from the event pattern noted above, I do not believe inheritors should be taxed on the inherited asset. I'm fine with inheritors being taxed on the gains from the sale of inherited assets.
I fully agree that inheritance tax is "double taxation" on the same asset. I was merely arguing that capital gains tax is not double taxation.
In all of the discourse over income inequality, there has not been much focus on inherited wealth. I just read Bernie Sanders 13 point plan for income redistribution. Here is what he proposed for a Federal inheritance tax:
"He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million."
To me that seems a rather high bar for money that was "not earned". If you are tapping that income pool, why would you not go after the much larger percentage of Americans that inherited, say, more than $1 million? Or less? Or is inherited money, under all circumstances, off limits? This is one area where I COULD support a new Federal tax.
IF and only IF it were possible to take Federal inheritance tax money and DIRECTLY use all of it for a specific purpose such as reduction of college tuition and/or skills training, I would support it. I would pick a low percentage, around 10% and a level of $1 million with specific language in the law that it NEVER increases in percentage or inheritance amount. No inflation or other adjustments allowed.
What do you think? Should the IRS tax code be modified to tax inherited money, and if so at what level, and what percentage and why? How would you ensure that the inheritance tax money DIRECTLY benefited the poor?
In all of the discourse over income inequality, there has not been much focus on inherited wealth. I just read Bernie Sanders 13 point plan for income redistribution. Here is what he proposed for a Federal inheritance tax:
"He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million."
To me that seems a rather high bar for money that was "not earned". If you are tapping that income pool, why would you not go after the much larger percentage of Americans that inherited, say, more than $1 million? Or less? Or is inherited money, under all circumstances, off limits? This is one area where I COULD support a new Federal tax.
IF and only IF it were possible to take Federal inheritance tax money and DIRECTLY use all of it for a specific purpose such as reduction of college tuition and/or skills training, I would support it. I would pick a low percentage, around 10% and a level of $1 million with specific language in the law that it NEVER increases in percentage or inheritance amount. No inflation or other adjustments allowed.
What do you think? Should the IRS tax code be modified to tax inherited money, and if so at what level, and what percentage and why? How would you ensure that the inheritance tax money DIRECTLY benefited the poor?