Estate Tax abolishment

[phide]

For those of you interested in economics/politics in the US, you may may have recently heard talk of erradicating the Estate Tax. In simple terms, this taxes a wealthy individuals total estate value after death. The tax only comes into effect at estates valued at over $1.5 million, though keep in mind that the tax definition of estate also includes 401K/IRAs and other types of security investments. You don't have to be unfathomably rich to have an estate valued at over $1.5 million.

Reportedly, this tax generates roughly $970 billion in yearly revenue, affecting about 2% of the population. Not a terribly high amount considering the percentages collected on applicable estates.

What's your take on the proposed slicing of the Estate Tax? Being a libertarian and generally not standing for blatant double-taxing (and triple-taxing), I believe this is a step forward in the war to end punishing the rich. Fiscal responsibility is massively important, but there are far better ways to reduce the deficit than robbing the pockets of the dead. Cutting useless government programs and giving the bird to welfare, medicaid and social security (yes, CUTTING social security) would be vastly more effective at getting to that elusive zero deficit.

I'm curious as to everyones thoughts on this one.

[siddy]

What's your take on the proposed slicing of the Estate Tax? Being a libertarian and generally not standing for blatant double-taxing (and triple-taxing), I believe this is a step forward in the war to end punishing the rich. Fiscal responsibility is massively important, but there are far better ways to reduce the deficit than robbing the pockets of the dead. Cutting useless government programs and giving the bird to welfare, medicaid and social security (yes, CUTTING social security) would be vastly more effective at getting to that elusive zero deficit.

I'm curious as to everyones thoughts on this one.


Well, me being a freedom-hating, tax loving, commie pinko I must say that it really doesnt' seem like a great idea to me.

Stop taxing the well to do and make up with putting a bigger burdon on the poor? doesn't sound too grand to me.

[-V-]

Agreed. It's the well-to-do who have the most to gain from a stable government and the most to loose from an unstable one, therefore it is only fitting that they contribute more to make sure that that government remains stable in their own self-interest.

[Captain Colon]

I agree with the abolishment of such a silly tax, though only on principle.

[phatace51]

Agreed. It's the well-to-do who have the most to gain from a stable government and the most to loose from an unstable one, therefore it is only fitting that they contribute more to make sure that that government remains stable in their own self-interest.

They are dead. I'm sure they could care less. Actually, I would be pretty angry to know that my death is taxed and the things that I have EARNED througout my life, to secure a financial well being for my family, is taxed to hand out to someone else.

[marty]

Medicare, Welfare, and Social Security useless? They've been helping keep our society stable.

That's the only thing that bothers me about libertarianism; the selfishness and shortsightedness. "It doesn't affect me directly, so it MUST be useless."

[Agent Law]

How much percentage is the tax?

[Ch33zy]

Agreed. It's the well-to-do who have the most to gain from a stable government and the most to loose from an unstable one, therefore it is only fitting that they contribute more to make sure that that government remains stable in their own self-interest.

I'm all for taxing them while alive, but taxing dead people is a bit too far. Alot of families could use the money that they get when a grandparent kicks the bucket so to speak. Even the rich have debts.

[pro kossu]

I'm all for taxing them while alive, but taxing dead people is a bit too far. Alot of families could use the money that they get when a grandparent kicks the bucket so to speak. Even the rich have debts.

The cadaver doesnt fill the tax form. It's the living offspring who pay tax for income they havent earned. (And I suspect the debts are taken out before the tax).

Less taxes means less public services. Either that or they take up the slack elsewhere. And seeing how the estate tax is a concern for the people in the top bracket of the income chart, and that the Gini coefficient in the United States is already around 0.460 and rising, I see no the point in you repealing the tax.

The part I find amazing is how efficiently the idea of a "death tax" has been sold to people who cant even dream of having an estate worth enough to be taxed.

And for the one who asked about the tax rates: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/TMTemplate.cfm?DocID=734&topic2ID=40&topic3ID=41&DocTypeID=

[phatace51]

The cadaver doesnt fill the tax form. It's the living offspring who pay tax for income they havent earned. (And I suspect the debts are taken out before the tax).

Less taxes means less public services. Either that or they take up the slack elsewhere. And seeing how the estate tax is a concern for the people in the top bracket of the income chart, and that the Gini coefficient in the United States is already around 0.460 and rising, I see no the point in you repealing the tax.

The part I find amazing is how efficiently the idea of a "death tax" has been sold to people who cant even dream of having an estate worth enough to be taxed.

And for the one who asked about the tax rates: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/TMTemplate.cfm?DocID=734&topic2ID=40&topic3ID=41&DocTypeID=

As far as I know, every state has some sort of inheritance tax laws. For example, if someone leaves you ten million dollars, you will be taxed twice (at least). And yes, the gentlemen is correct. The living heir is the one who is taxed.

1. The inheritance tax - which is calculated (in most cases) by lineage
- for example - 5% tax for vertical dispersement (mother to son)
7% tax for horizontal dispersement (bro to sis)
10% for all others
2. Personal income taxes. You will have to pay income taxes on that money
because it was a new source of "income"

[GoatChomper]

Less taxes means less public services.
This is no more valid than claiming that more taxes means more public services.

[Modest Genius]

taxing the rich to help the poor is a good plan in my book, so stopping it isnt. what possible reason do their children have to inherit a bloody fortune? of course the kids should be entitled to something, but theres a point where it becomes ridiculous and meritocracy goes right out the window. why should someone become a big-shot businessman just because their parents were? what did they do to earn it?

[pro kossu]

This is no more valid than claiming that more taxes means more public services.

Well, yes, I guess less public spending would be more accurate.

[GoatChomper]

what possible reason do their children have to inherit a bloody fortune?
Sweet sufferin' Jesus, that's something I'd expect only from the most rabid lover of redistribution schemes.....having to show a reason for inheriting anything over a set amount.

Here's the only reason I need give: it's my filthy lucre, not the public's, and I'll damn well dispose of it any damn way I damn well please.

[phide]

That's the only thing that bothers me about libertarianism; the selfishness and shortsightedness. "It doesn't affect me directly, so it MUST be useless."

Libertarianism isn't about kicking people into the gutter, it's about handing personal responsibility back to everyone. While it seems unjust and selfish, it's simple principle. Give people the freedom to choose what they wish to do with what they earn pouring their hearts out into five, six, sometimes seven days a week. There are those that will hoard it selfishly and there are those who will make an effort to help those in need. It might seem unbelievable when you watch CNN, but Americans are still generally good hearted. When a massive hurricane devastates an entire region, there are folks that flock to help, those that dig into their pockets and hand what they find to the Red Cross and there are those who blame the events on George Bush. That's choice, and that's what we like to call freedom.

Social security was never meant to be what it is. Reform will take out many of the kinks, handing a bit more freedom to those who wish to ensure their own futures. I'm paying a grand amount of money each month to SS, and it's more likely than not that I'll never see a check back in my mailbox.

Welfare, quite simply, never should have been. Living in Los Angeles, I see a fair share of people collecting on it. The lovely gentlemen that recently held a switchblade to my throat and robbed me of a couple week's work probably collected a bit too. There are people who use it responsibly and there's the majority that take their monthly allocation of food stamps, buy candy, drop their kids on doorsteps or dumpsters and sell themselves for meth. Welfare feeds such behavior.

Medicare doesn't bother me (except for the fact that hospitals bill the fed $150 for gauze pads), though Medicaid does to some extent. More often than not, people who really need Medicaid (kids struggling to pay their way through school) won't ever get to see it. It's a fine thought in principle, but like many federal programs, it simply doesn't work.

And for clarification, I can't possibly fathom any instance where the Estate Tax would ever affect me, but I protest it because it affects others. How's that for compassion? :)

[Captain Colon]

what possible reason do their children have to inherit a bloody fortune?
Because its their money and they have the right to decide where their money goes :)

And for clarification, I can't possibly fathom any instance where the Estate Tax would ever affect me, but I protest it because it affects others. How's that for compassion? :)
Reminds me of a "conversation" I had on a CS server on election day

Me - "no i don't really support either of them, but I'd rather see bush back in"
D00d - "of course you would, you're just a fucking rich asshole"
Me - "uhhhh yeah I probably make less in a quarter than most people will in a month"
D00d - "oh well you're cool in my book then"
Me - ":confused:"

:rolleyes:

[-V-]

Welfare, quite simply, never should have been. Living in Los Angeles, I see a fair share of people collecting on it.
For a maximum of only 5 years total. After that get a job.


Medicare doesn't bother me (except for the fact that hospitals bill the fed $150 for gauze pads), though Medicaid does to some extent. More often than not, people who really need Medicaid (kids struggling to pay their way through school) won't ever get to see it. It's a fine thought in principle, but like many federal programs, it simply doesn't work.
A) Hospitals bill everyone $150 for a gauze pad, nothing really surprising there, and B) All people who are too poor to afford medicine need help. I don't care if your 18 or 80 years old, you should still have access to medicine. C) Mereley because something does not work is not a reason to totally drop it. If all people had the same idea, the Wright brothers would never have invented the airplane, nor would we have a man on the moon. The addage of "If its broke it needs fixin'" is still valid.

[FaKToR]

Being a libertarian and generally not standing for blatant double-taxing (and triple-taxing)...
Oh no, not double taxing anything but that. Oh wait, you pay taxes on your income, and then you usually pay a sales tax, DOUBLE TAXATION! It's not as big a deal as people will lead you to believe. The issue is not how many times you tax them, it's by how much you tax them with regard to their ability to pay it and how effectively that money is employed.

I believe this is a step forward in the war to end punishing the rich.
How is this punishing the rich? What are people going to stop trying to make lots of money because they don't want to pay some taxes?

Cutting useless government programs and giving the bird to welfare, medicaid and social security (yes, CUTTING social security) would be vastly more effective at getting to that elusive zero deficit.
Kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Not everyone wants to eliminate the deficit at all costs.

Libertarianism isn't about kicking people into the gutter, it's about handing personal responsibility back to everyone.
That assumes all issues are merely a matter of personal responsibility.

The lovely gentlemen that recently held a switchblade to my throat and robbed me of a couple week's work probably collected a bit too.
Oh I like this. Person A does something bad X to me and he might, you don't even say that he is, might be associated with this program you don't like. That's fan-fucking-tastic. Why didn't you just use it as an argument against knives, I mean at least you knew that part was a fact and not speculation.

[Bobo*the*Clown]

Oh no, not double taxing anything but that. Oh wait, you pay taxes on your income, and then you usually pay a sales tax, DOUBLE TAXATION! It's not as big a deal as people will lead you to believe. The issue is not how many times you tax them, it's by how much you tax them with regard to their ability to pay it and how effectively that money is employed.
How much tax is too much? 10%? 20%? How about 50%? Is that too much to pay? Once you add federal, state, sales & property taxes..you can hit 55% taxation pretty damn easy. And that's just to earn a living. Out of that 45% left you get to invest in your business, pay for employees, inventory, equipment and everything else you need to run a business....oh...and you have to support yourself too. Your house, car, food, utilities, kids, you name it. Work hard, save a lot, invest wisely, and when you die if you break 1.5 million in assests, you get to give MORE to the federal government. I guess 55% taxation simply isn't enough in some peoples view.

Faktor, you have no idea what you're talking about here and it shows. When you begin looking at estate taxes and how the deceased have already paid income tax, sales tax, property tax, social security and medicare, personal property tax, and business taxes on that SAME money, to tax the estate again simply because someone has died is ludicris. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to build a 1.5 million dollar estate AFTER you've already paid ALL the taxes due on that? Any clue the discipline and sacrifice it takes? That 1.5 million in net (ie AFTER tax) assets represents an unknown amount of gross sales-damn...you have to deduct all business expenses, costs of goods sold, equipment, inventory, wages, taxes, medicare & social security for yourself and all employees; that 1.5 million is whats left after YEARS of labor and investment. That 1.5 million has already been taxed multiple times and it's usually the only source of 'retirement' funds the small business owner has.

That being said, the 1.5 million cut off is absurdly easy to reach if the deceased was lucky enough to create and grow a successful small business to support his family.

I've got a good friend with a vending company. He started from scratch, he and his wife have worked their asses off to build it; based on inventory and assets it's worth around 1.5 million...that's not cash though...it's mostly property & inventory assets. So he has a business worth $1,500,000 if he sells everything...but he has no plans to sell it because its their livlihood. If he dies, he wants his family to be able to keep running the business to support themselves...and support the two or three people he employs. But...if his 'estate' isn't set up correctly his family could be facing the estate tax upon his death. If his family gets trapped into the estate tax, they will have to liquidate the business to pay the estate taxes due-they just don't have that cash laying around. His family doesn't get the benefit of all that work, they lose those hard earned assets to the federal government. Two or three other people lose their jobs, his family loses their source of income (income thats used to pay income tax, property tax, medicaid & social security taxes) and the business ceases to exist-sold off to pay more taxes.

Read up on the situation-it happens. The estate tax hurts the people that are responsible, hard working & entrepenurial. Look at all the small family restaurants where you live, small machine shops, auto body shops, small builders, family businesses everywhere...once you add all their assets up, it's easy for many of them to get hit by the estate tax. And you're talking about people that work their asses off for a living-people that are good at what they do, but who are so busy trying to run their business they're not aware of what happens if they die without adequate planning. And that's exactly what the estate tax takes advantage of. It's obscene.

I listen to you guys go on and on about taxes and the only thing *I* hear from you is that you have no clue what it takes to actually build a small business and you have no clue the impact taxes have on a bottom line. My ex-wife is a doctor with a small practice. Her business supports one other full time doctor, one part time doctor, and three assistants. She pays well, she provides health insurance and retirement benefits; she pays more in just income taxes for everyone than most people earn in a year. She could hire an additional person full time and one part time just from what she pays in income tax. But...taxes are just a cost of doing business. Most small business owners understand that-they know that money does not grow on trees and they have to do the best they can with what they have. I get the strong impression that some of you younger guys haven't figured that simple fact out yet.

My ex-wife would love to hire another assistant but once you calculate the tax and benefit cost, the money simply is not there to do it. So instead of hiring someone to grow her business, she pays the money in taxes to the goevernment who then sends a welfare check to someone who has no job. Rather ironic when you think about it.

[Modest Genius]

Sweet sufferin' Jesus, that's something I'd expect only from the most rabid lover of redistribution schemes.....having to show a reason for inheriting anything over a set amount.

Here's the only reason I need give: it's my filthy lucre, not the public's, and I'll damn well dispose of it any damn way I damn well please.and why not? just because its yours, doesnt mean it shouldnt be taxed. the more equal society is, the better. and the only way i know of by which that can be done under a capitalist system is through taxation.

those who can afford it should pay more. and someone who didnt even earn their money should DEFINATELY be taxed on it. i really cant understand how you can possibly argue otherwise. oh and its NOT your 'filthy lucre', but your parents/grandparents/whoever. and they certainly dont need it any more.

[phide]

I mean at least you knew that part was a fact and not speculation.

It's simple speculation founded by a reasonable amount of fact and rumours I've gathered since I've been here. I couldn't really label it as part of my argument, but I threw it out there mostly to tie a few things in to one another without going into too much depth. It's pretty difficult, especially in Los Angeles, to gauge how many bums are collecting without residence. There are estimates, but I don't think any of them could ever be accurate or provable in one form or another, and so aren't relevant. Take my words for whatever you think they're worth.

It's an example of the flaws in the system which, without a great deal of kicking and screaming, won't ever be fixed. There's a political incentive to leave these holes unpatched, so to speak, especially for democrat politicians. The more money John Doe democratic presedential candidate promises to throw down the welfare drain, the more the general left-wing public will really start to like John Doe democratic presendential candidate. Doesn't work out too badly for republican candidates either.

the more equal society is, the better.

Capitalism is no place for communist ideals. It seems strange in this day and age for an American to subscribe to the communist manifesto, but there seem to be a growing number, and they seem to be merging into the democratic party. We're moving away from the two parties being two sides of the same coin back to having two parties which are pretty damn different.

[Bobo*the*Clown]

and why not? just because its yours, doesnt mean it shouldnt be taxed. the more equal society is, the better. and the only way i know of by which that can be done under a capitalist system is through taxation.

But the money has already been taxed numerous times. 55% taxation...you really think that's acceptable? How much more? 65%? 70%? Is there any tax amount that is too much?

those who can afford it should pay more. and someone who didnt even earn their money should DEFINATELY be taxed on it. i really cant understand how you can possibly argue otherwise. oh and its NOT your 'filthy lucre', but your parents/grandparents/whoever. and they certainly dont need it any more.
Those who earn more DO pay more. I don't know how it is in England but here it's called a progressive tax bracket. As your income climbs, you pay progressively more tax. But that's just the Federal Income Tax. Add to that a state income tax, your state property tax, your federal medicare and social security taxes; plus any local use or transportation or personal property taxes...and you can easily pay more than 50% of every dollar you earn to taxes. 55% of a $200,000 income is one fuckload of tax to pay. Compare that to a guy making $70,000 and paying 42%. The upper earners do pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than anyone else.

Oh...and if *I* earn the money, and *I* save the money and *I* build an estate worth anything...who the hell are you to tell me who *I* can give it to when I die? It's my money that *I* earned, that *I* paid taxes on, that *I* sacrificed for. If *you* want more money for your wonderful government program...go work, go earn, go sacrifice for it, go pay taxes on all of it and then give *your* money to whoever in the hell you want...because *my* filthy lucre is MINE to give to whoever I see fit. My death does not give my government the authority to seize my estate-and yet that's exactly what an estate tax does. It is a tax due because I had the misfortune of dying. You seem to be saying that my family shouldn't benefit from my death but my government should. I fundamentally disagree.

[GoatChomper]

and why not? just because its yours, doesnt mean it shouldnt be taxed.
It already is taxed.....an estate tax is an added one imposed simply by virtue of having more that can be taken.
.....the more equal society is, the better.
BWAHAHAHHA. Yeah right, Marxist societies are all the rage. The Cuban Coast Guard has to turn away Floridians on rafts every day.

Wanna see equality? Go ahead with the Greens' insane idea of a tax rate of 100% for anything over $100.00 / hour and watch investment dry up instantly.
those who can afford it should pay more.
They already do.
And why "should" they? Simply because somebody wants it and knows they can agitate for mandatory charity at gunpoint.
.....and someone who didnt even earn their money should DEFINATELY be taxed on it.
Why? Because you want it? Not good enough.
i really cant understand how you can possibly argue otherwise.
Because you're blinded by love for the empty promises of socialism.....not an uncommon condition among those who see themselves as the ones to profit from it at another's expense.
oh and its NOT your 'filthy lucre', but your parents/grandparents/whoever.
It becomes mine when they will it to me, just like any other assets.
and they certainly dont need it any more.
Ah, yes.....the ever-ephemeral "public good".

[Modest Genius]

Capitalism is no place for communist ideals. It seems strange in this day and age for an American to subscribe to the communist manifesto, but there seem to be a growing number, and they seem to be merging into the democratic party. We're moving away from the two parties being two sides of the same coin back to having two parties which are pretty damn different.err, what? thats not a response to my quote, is it?!?!?
But the money has already been taxed numerous times. 55% taxation...you really think that's acceptable? How much more? 65%? 70%? Is there any tax amount that is too much?cant say i can set a numerical limit on it, but as much as is possible whilst still leaving people with a) enough to live a decent (not decadent) life on and b) enough so that there is still incentive to work
Those who earn more DO pay more. I don't know how it is in England but here it's called a progressive tax bracket. As your income climbs, you pay progressively more tax. But that's just the Federal Income Tax. Add to that a state income tax, your state property tax, your federal medicare and social security taxes; plus any local use or transportation or personal property taxes...and you can easily pay more than 50% of every dollar you earn to taxes. 55% of a $200,000 income is one fuckload of tax to pay. Compare that to a guy making $70,000 and paying 42%. The upper earners do pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than anyone else.sure, but goat was attacking my support of redistribution. and my point was that if you can countenance progressive bands on income tax, why not on inheritance?
Oh...and if *I* earn the money, and *I* save the money and *I* build an estate worth anything...who the hell are you to tell me who *I* can give it to when I die?the government. they tend to be the bossIt's my money that *I* earned, that *I* paid taxes on, that *I* sacrificed for. If *you* want more money for your wonderful government program...go work, go earn, go sacrifice for it, go pay taxes on all of it and then give *your* money to whoever in the hell you want...because *my* filthy lucre is MINE to give to whoever I see fit. My death does not give my government the authority to seize my estate-and yet that's exactly what an estate tax does. It is a tax due because I had the misfortune of dying. You seem to be saying that my family shouldn't benefit from my death but my government should. I fundamentally disagree.No, I'm saying that your family SHOULD benefit, to the extent of what is reasonable, but that so should the government. I'm arguing for increasing taxation the more you recieve, so someone who leaves a modest inheritance would not be taxed, but someone who leaves a huge amount should still end up with more, but pay lots more tax
It already is taxed.....an estate tax is an added one imposed simply by virtue of having more that can be taken.think of it in terms of the inheritee. they are receiving unearned income. sure, someone earned it, but they didnt. why should someone be allowed to sit on their arse for their entire life because they know theyll be rolling in it when their grandparents die?
BWAHAHAHHA. Yeah right, Marxist societies are all the rage. The Cuban Coast Guard has to turn away Floridians on rafts every day.sorry, when did i EVER show my support for Marxism? i said EQUAL societies, not communist ones. they suffer from the whole dictatorship of the proletariat thing, and a lack of non-oppressive incentive. where the hell did you get the idea that i was a communist?
Wanna see equality? Go ahead with the Greens' insane idea of a tax rate of 100% for anything over $100.00 / hour and watch investment dry up instantly.at no point have i EVER encouraged a 100% tax on ANYTHING, even in a certain bracket, and i never will do, or there will be no incentives under the current capitalist system. unless of course we bring in demurrage, which would somewhat encourage investment...
And why "should" they? Simply because somebody wants it and knows they can agitate for mandatory charity at gunpoint.
Why? Because you want it? Not good enough.because public income has to come from somewhere. that means tax and excise, unless you have any better ideas. and it is my belief that charging tax to those who cannot afford it is wrong and counterproductive, so by a process of elimination it has to fall on those who CAN afford it. unless youre advocating anarchy or a monacoesque system of only taxing certain nationalities/classes of people?
Because you're blinded by love for the empty promises of socialism.....not an uncommon condition among those who see themselves as the ones to profit from it at another's expense.woah, im blinded by love? thats a new one. oh and have a think about it the other way around: redistribution is considered anathema by those who would lose out by it. and i generally try to look beyond personal profit, its not as if im claiming benefits or anything...
It becomes mine when they will it to me, just like any other assets.see my point about living off inheritance
Ah, yes.....the ever-ephemeral "public good".would you prefer no taxation? is the work of governments pointless? because if not the money has to come from somewhere, and i believe the rich are the most able to provide it, not the poor

goat, why to you continue to assign me political beliefs and dogmas which are not my own? i have NEVER professed to being a communist, or a marxist, or a socialist, nor have i ever assigned by political allegiance to any one party or individual. so could you please attack my points, not a non-existant dogma of mine

finally, take a look at the quality of living table, and then compare it to the level of income equality in those countries. in general, those high up the list have more income equality than those lower down, although as usual that isnt a hard and fast rule and there are plenty of counterexamples. THAT is what i mean by equal societies being a good thing, because in general they result in a better quality of life for their inhabitants

[Captain Colon]

think of it in terms of the inheritee. they are receiving unearned income. sure, someone earned it, but they didnt. why should someone be allowed to sit on their arse for their entire life because they know theyll be rolling in it when their grandparents die?
I think a better question would be why shouldn't they?

[Bobo*the*Clown]

Modest, the problem with all income redistribution schemes is that it assumes a static and fixed economic strata...and that's simply not the case. People can move up in wealth, or they can move down. People do not have to be poor their entire life.
cant say i can set a numerical limit on it, but as much as is possible whilst still leaving people with a) enough to live a decent (not decadent) life on and b) enough so that there is still incentive to workBut there is no real numerical limit on taxation as it sits now-that's one problem. There's fixed percentages for the different taxes that people pay, but once you begin adding those percentages, they become nearly punitive.

This quote of yours is the heart of your argument-"leaving people with enough to live a decent (not decadent) life." Who defines that? The government? One mans excess is another mans hardship. Right now, the governement defines the poverty level as around $15,000 per year. Is that 'decent'? Would $25,000 be 'decadent'? The guy that earns $150,000 a year is driving the economy. He's plowing the vast majority of that money back into the economy...employing people, buying goods & services, investing in growth, you name it. How is that 'decadent'? It may seem decadent to someone living in a one room apartment on $10,000/year but it's absolutely frugal to someone earning $250,000 or $500,000-who are also pumping that money back into the economy.

The other part of this quote is simply amazing "enough so that there is still incentive to work" you admit that as tax rates go up, there becomes a strong dis-incentive to work harder or earn more-the law of diminishing returns. As tax rates increase, incentive to work decreases. You can see the reverse of this during Regan's presidency-his cuts in tax rates lead to one of the largest economic booms in history-when people kept more of their own money, they worked harder to make more money for themselves...not for their government. As a result of the increase in productivity, the government actually took in MORE money-the trickle down theory worked.
Oh...and if *I* earn the money, and *I* save the money and *I* build an estate worth anything...who the hell are you to tell me who *I* can give it to when I die?
the government. they tend to be the boss
No. They are not the boss...supposedly...the government is BY the people, FOR the people-the people are the boss. The Government is in service of the people...not the other way around. Their claim to my money stops at what is legally taxed. Beyond that-it is *my* money, not theirs.

[Modest Genius]

I think a better question would be why shouldn't they?because there are plenty of hard working people who do everything they can but nevertheless remain poor. and that strikes me as unfair.
Modest, the problem with all income redistribution schemes is that it assumes a static and fixed economic strata...and that's simply not the case. People can move up in wealth, or they can move down. People do not have to be poor their entire life.sure, but most of the time rich people stay rich. and if they dont its generally because they wasted their money and even then they can get a job like the rest of us. Im not going to address going the other way, as this is a tax on the rich
But there is no real numerical limit on taxation as it sits now-that's one problem. There's fixed percentages for the different taxes that people pay, but once you begin adding those percentages, they become nearly punitive.

This quote of yours is the heart of your argument-"leaving people with enough to live a decent (not decadent) life." Who defines that? The government? One mans excess is another mans hardship. Right now, the governement defines the poverty level as around $15,000 per year. Is that 'decent'? Would $25,000 be 'decadent'? The guy that earns $150,000 a year is driving the economy. He's plowing the vast majority of that money back into the economy...employing people, buying goods & services, investing in growth, you name it. How is that 'decadent'? It may seem decadent to someone living in a one room apartment on $10,000/year but it's absolutely frugal to someone earning $250,000 or $500,000-who are also pumping that money back into the economy.again, i cant really put a number on it, but, say, 10 times median wage? above which taxed at 80%? with everything under half median untaxed at all? dont hold me to that, its just a ballpark figure. and decadence can be defined by the government with reference to things like median wages or poverty lines. and this is only a scale height anyway, a ratcheting up of rates as you approach it
The other part of this quote is simply amazing "enough so that there is still incentive to work" you admit that as tax rates go up, there becomes a strong dis-incentive to work harder or earn more-the law of diminishing returns. As tax rates increase, incentive to work decreases. You can see the reverse of this during Regan's presidency-his cuts in tax rates lead to one of the largest economic booms in history-when people kept more of their own money, they worked harder to make more money for themselves...not for their government. As a result of the increase in productivity, the government actually took in MORE money-the trickle down theory worked.sure, i admit that. but at the same time trickle down doesnt work. it works in terms of economics, because people earn more money under a booming economy, but not in terms of quality of life because it deepens the rich-poor divide
No. They are not the boss...supposedly...the government is BY the people, FOR the people-the people are the boss. The Government is in service of the people...not the other way around. Their claim to my money stops at what is legally taxed. Beyond that-it is *my* money, not theirs.nonsense. they are appointed to be boss for a term of office, in the same way as directors are voted in by shareholders. if you seriously think that any modern democracy is really owned by the people you are seriously deluded, its a question of choosing the management of the system, not setting up to system in terms of what the people want. thats a nice ideal, but it simply doesnt happen, sorry

[Captain Colon]

because there are plenty of hard working people who do everything they can but nevertheless remain poor. and that strikes me as unfair.
Well, as they say in Real Life™: sucks to be you. I'm against someone telling me "hey here's some money you sad little poor person you, now everything is fair" the same as I'm against someone telling Richy Rich up on Mansion Hill that he has to pay 70% to the government.

That's not to say I won't enjoy getting a near 100% tax refund (if I'm not mistaken)...too bad for the government I guess.

[FaKToR]

How much tax is too much? 10%? 20%? How about 50%?
Good thing you weren't paying income taxes anytime in the last century or you'd die of an aneurysm. Since the end of world war two the top income tax bracket has come down from 91% during the world war II until 1964, then 70% was the top rate from 1964 to 1981 when it was decreased to 50%, aren't you glad you weren't paying the top tax rate then? I'm sure other taxes have varied, but you have to be shitting me if you think 35 percent for the top bracket is the worst thing that can happen.
Once you add federal, state, sales & property taxes..you can hit 55% taxation pretty damn easy. And that's just to earn a living. Out of that 45% left you get to invest in your business, pay for employees, inventory, equipment and everything else you need to run a business....oh...and you have to support yourself too. Your house, car, food, utilities, kids, you name it. Work hard, save a lot, invest wisely, and when you die if you break 1.5 million in assests, you get to give MORE to the federal government. I guess 55% taxation simply isn't enough in some peoples view.
Except you neglect deductibles. If people of low incomes can make it then I have faith in the ability of those who are well off.
When you begin looking at estate taxes and how the deceased have already paid income tax, sales tax, property tax, social security and medicare, personal property tax, and business taxes on that SAME money, to tax the estate again simply because someone has died is ludicris.
You are assuming that taxes were paid in the first place. You also ignore unpaid taxes on unrealized capital appreciation. This policy is mainly targeted against the super rich, who happen to be good at avoiding taxes.
That being said, the 1.5 million cut off is absurdly easy to reach if the deceased was lucky enough to create and grow a successful small business to support his family.
Not really. The number of estates that had any money from a farm/small business that qualified for the estate tax (out of 2 percent who actually qualify) were about 7,090 out of 18,800 (from 2004) and of those only 440 were ones where the business/farm made up more than half the estate. Of those 440 none averaged more than a 23 percent tax rate. It's not as easy as you claim it to be. Keep in mind that for 1.5-2.0 million the tax rate is 1.6 percent which is about 24,000 dollars for a net estate of 1.5 million dollars. There's also an annual exclusion for up to 11,000 dollars that you can give to a person each year that cannot be taxed (btw each spouse can give 11,000).
If he dies, he wants his family to be able to keep running the business to support themselves...and support the two or three people he employs.
There's a marital deduction for the property from the estate that goes to your spouse. I can't really gauge your friend some I'm not familiar with the specifics of his situation. I'm sure there are deductibles he can take advantage of though.
she pays more in just income taxes for everyone than most people earn in a year. She could hire an additional person full time and one part time just from what she pays in income tax. But...taxes are just a cost of doing business.
Funny you say that, she wasn't so greedy, she could take a hit to her income, hire those people and then write their salaries off on her taxes.
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch02.html#d0e1216
So instead of hiring someone to grow her business, she pays the money in taxes to the goevernment who then sends a welfare check to someone who has no job.
Actually most welfare programs are things like social security, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps etc. Not much goes to actually giving people money and usually there are requirements for having dependents in order to receive benefits.
55% of a $200,000 income is one fuckload of tax to pay. Compare that to a guy making $70,000 and paying 42%. The upper earners do pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than anyone else.
I'd still rather make 200,000 a year if you ask me. Keep in mind that some taxes are "flat" like sales taxes which are actually regressive and take a bigger chunk out of those who earn less.
Yeah right, Marxist societies are all the rage. The Cuban Coast Guard has to turn away Floridians on rafts every day.
You're confusing Marxism with socialism and then you're painting all socialism with the same brush. You made a cluster fuck of that argument didn't you. Even if we were to agree that it's absolute hell living in any socialist state it can still be arguably more equitable. I'll tell you what the people in the former socialist states are clamoring food and health care more than they are for capitalism.
And why "should" they? Simply because somebody wants it and knows they can agitate for mandatory charity at gunpoint.
Because it's the only equitable way to do it. There are services that need to be provided for and a regressive system of taxation wouldn't be equitable. A private system is still going to have to costs to be met, which have to be paid somehow. Come on Goat, you know that nothing is free.
It becomes mine when they will it to me, just like any other assets.

Yeah but before it becomes yours it's taxed.
Ah, yes.....the ever-ephemeral "public good".
One must wonder why we even have societies.
I think a better question would be why shouldn't they?
I certainly hope to never hear you complain about "poor people" getting money for nothing. I mean since there's nothing wrong with getting money for doing nothing.
As tax rates increase, incentive to work decreases.
I seriously doubt it's as profound as you make it out to be. I'm not worried about people saying "no thanks on that raise, I don't want to pay taxes" or "I'm not gonna take that job it pays too much".
You can see the reverse of this during Regan's presidency-his cuts in tax rates lead to one of the largest economic booms in history-when people kept more of their own money, they worked harder to make more money for themselves...not for their government.
Are you talking about the recession that occurred during Bush Senior's presidency and he decided to raise taxes?

[Captain Colon]

I certainly hope to never hear you complain about "poor people" getting money for nothing. I mean since there's nothing wrong with getting money for doing nothing.
Last time I checked people get to choose where their assets go when they die, not where their tax money goes.

[marty]

Welfare isn't just handing out money for poor people to live. It's also subsidies and tax breaks for business to encourage them to grow (and tax that growth to pay for the subsidies ;)). If we're gonna do it for businesses, why not to regular people, too? There's a lot of abuse of the system, but that goes for businesses, farmers, and "regular people" alike.

The only thing about Social Security that bothers me is that the number has become our National Identification Number. The future of that is not something I like to think about.

[phide]

Instead of gobbling up tax revenue and doing a poor job of distributing it in any sort of reasonable manner, it's always more effecient and desirable just to let people (and their businesses) keep more of what they earn and let them decide what they wish to do with it. The wise invest in themselves, their businesses and the markets. The weak want unions and governments to take care of everything for them.

Every mentally and physically healthy human being can be swimming in wealth if that's what they desire. Some choose absolute wealth (with consequences), some choose to pursue their passions and value their time on Earth and too many choose to live on the backs of others. Some choose a mix of any two out of three. You can never make any argument for why one healthy individual can't accumulate a vast amount of wealth.

[Modest Genius]

yes you can, quite easily. like having to have some to invest in the first place, not having an education, having to turn to crime because theres no other income, and many others

[phide]

As I've said, there is no valid excuse.

Americans are given an education as a governmental birthright. Billions upon billions of dollars are invested in America's youth. No parent can inflict on a child's ability to learn. College scholarships are shockingly abound in America, especially for minorities. The Army provides training and up to $60,000 for college and up to $90,000 for repayment of student loans. The Army Reserve/National Guard also provide pretty incredible educational benefits for what usually ends up being very little sacrifice. Student loans are offered federally and privately at some of the lowest rates ever seen before and are geared primarily toward low-income families and, yes, minorities. Many states offer lottery-sponsored scholarships that provide full college tuition for graduating high school with a paltry B average.

Money for investing comes from working hard and attempting to advance one's self every step of the way. People nationwide work forty hour work weeks while attending college every day. Businesses that require very little start-up capital are flourishing. The average work week for some of these people may be into the eighty-hour range, but speaking from personal experience, that's something that's entirely doable.

Nobody *has* to turn to crime for income. Unmotivated slugs do this because it's easy. Turning to crime is a personal choice like any other.

There is no excuse you could possibly come up with to validate the claim that a typical healthy American can't have wealth. If you think you've come up with a REALLY great one, send it over to the "Talkmaster"; the Atlanta based talk show host Neil Boortz. This topic is his forte.

[GoatChomper]

why should someone be allowed to sit on their arse for their entire life because they know theyll be rolling in it when their grandparents die?
You still haven't shown anything here other than institutionalized envy......you'd have a fiscal penalty for the offense of having wealthy predecessors.
at no point have i EVER encouraged a 100% tax on ANYTHING.....
An extreme example in one way to kill incentive. For one you could relate to better, consider the high taxes your nation has on telephone service and its piss-poor comparison to that of Mexico's......I've worked with both, and I'll take Mexico's over BT any day.
finally, take a look at the quality of living table.....
Such tables do little more than reflect the tastes of the creator.....I don't care about what they consider "good", I damn well don't feel like moving to one of those nations.
Even if we were to agree that it's absolute hell living in any socialist state it can still be arguably more equitable.
Yes, they can all be equally down.
I'll tell you what the people in the former socialist states are clamoring food and health care more than they are for capitalism.
Except the ones trying like hell to get out.

After decades of living under such regimes, no wonder they find themselves largely incapable of otherwise.

[Walnut]

the more equal society is, the better.

No, the more freedom a society has, the better. I don't give a rat's ass about enforcing equality.

If we're gonna do it for businesses, why not to regular people, too?

We shouldn't do it for either group.

[FaKToR]

I don't give a rat's ass about enforcing equality.

That's not totally true, you belive in laws to protect property correct? Good laws are based on equity.

[Modest Genius]

No, the more freedom a society has, the better. I don't give a rat's ass about enforcing equality.so, youre an anarchist? ever looked up what actually happened on the few occasions there really is anarchy?

[Grunt]

so, youre an anarchist?

More freedom != anarchy

[Modest Genius]

no, he said the more freedom, the better. the most freedom you can have must therefore, by his logic, by the best. and the most you can have is no restrictions, ie anarchy

[FaKToR]

If that's Vicious Walnut then he's a libertarian, in which case he most likely is or verges on being an anarcho-capitalist.

[Walnut]

no, he said the more freedom, the better. the most freedom you can have must therefore, by his logic, by the best. and the most you can have is no restrictions, ie anarchy

No, because in my view, there is no freedom to harm others, so a government is needed to jail murderers/etc.

Faktor is basically right, I'm a libertarian, which basically means I want as small a government as is possible while still maintaining order (with some added things, I think the government should build roads and schools, for example).

[Grunt]

Government should spend more on rail and public transportation than roads.

[Modest Genius]

No, because in my view, there is no freedom to harm others, so a government is needed to jail murderers/etc.ahh, but that contradicts your previous statement. my point was to show how stupid that previous statement was

[SWATJester_os]

Man....I fail to see how being punished for making a lot of money is a good thing, it's just incentive for me to not do shit.

[FaKToR]

No it's not. It's not a punishment, and people aren't going to stop trying to make gobs of money because of the estate tax.

[SWATJester_os]

Then why not estate tax the poor, at a far lesser but fair percentage.....see how well THAT goes over. No, I fucking hate this idea that because someone is rich they should have more of their money taken away because "they can afford it".....Yeah we can afford it but we also work damn hard to get it and should have our rewards taken from us for being successful.

[FaKToR]

So what is your solution then? Tax those who can't afford it? Make essential services private? Costs don't magically disappear and if something needs to be paid for and the only equitable way to do so is taxing the rich then I'm all for it.

[Modest Genius]

exactly. its not a case of punishing the rich, its a case of working out where the hell you are going to get all the money you need for running essential public services, and discovering the only really fair way is to charge the rich more than the poor

[SWATJester_os]

If it's proportional is one thing. But there are FAR more poor than rich...taxing many poor just a little bit gives you quite a bit of money to work with.


But when you tax the rich and ONLY the rich, such as the estate tax, that's not right.

[Walnut]

ahh, but that contradicts your previous statement. my point was to show how stupid that previous statement was

You're right.