Inheritance tax
I am against the inheritance tax. The money accumulated has of course already been taxed.
My liberal son says something like 'who cares'? He says if we need to collect taxes what better way than from dead multi-millionaires? (It doesn't kick in for 95+% of the population).
Anyway, any chance Trump successfully repeals the inheritance tax, then quits?
Quote: SOOPOOMany of the anti-Trumpers are worried about conflicts of interest with regards to hotels, clothing lines, Russian stock holdings, etc. I believe I saw that DJT plans to eliminate entirely the inheritance tax. That is billions in dollars that he will be able to leave to his kids without the government getting a piece. The other stuff is small peanuts compared to this.
I am against the inheritance tax. The money accumulated has of course already been taxed.
My liberal son says something like 'who cares'? He says if we need to collect taxes what better way than from dead multi-millionaires? (It doesn't kick in for 95+% of the population).
Anyway, any chance Trump successfully repeals the inheritance tax, then quits?
No
ZCore13
Quote: SOOPOOMy liberal son says something like 'who cares'? He says if we need to collect taxes what better way than from dead multi-millionaires? (It doesn't kick in for 95+% of the population).
Well, he has a point. If we have to have taxes why not collect more of them from the dead. Same way, as you may not get taxes from a welfare person, but you can likely tax them on a lottery ticket they willingly buy.
Go where it's easiest to get your tax money. That makes sense.
I support a high estate tax. Just a few years ago, it was $600,000 in NY. Far too low.
$10 million is okay with me.
Quote: SOOPOOMany of the anti-Trumpers are worried about conflicts of interest with regards to hotels, clothing lines, Russian stock holdings, etc. I believe I saw that DJT plans to eliminate entirely the inheritance tax. That is billions in dollars that he will be able to leave to his kids without the government getting a piece. The other stuff is small peanuts compared to this.
I am against the inheritance tax. The money accumulated has of course already been taxed.
My liberal son says something like 'who cares'? He says if we need to collect taxes what better way than from dead multi-millionaires? (It doesn't kick in for 95+% of the population).
Anyway, any chance Trump successfully repeals the inheritance tax, then quits?
I don't think Trump will be able to do that. He might push hard for it, but it's too craven a move to get passed.
My concerns are different from those you listed. I want to know what foreign govt and quasi govt corporate holdings he has. For example, what if he's invested in Airbus? Look at the crap he's putting Boeing and Lockheed Martin thru. Benefits Airbus.
What foreign targets are now more vulnerable to attack? Trump -invested real estate and businesses. You think our tax dollars and agencies won't be directed against those attacks? I do.
I think we, as a nation, bought a pig in a poke. Who knows what we're now going to be used to do that's aimed at benefitting him. He and his admin should be proscribed from meeting with any foreign representatives until we do know, at a minimum. And that includes the kids.
I'm betting impeachment proceedings will start within 36 months.
Another problem is that small business owners can have trouble turning over the business to their heirs due to the tax. Sometimes a good business serving the community just has to go belly up.
It seems problematic.
Quote: odiousgambitAnother problem is that small business owners can have trouble turning over the business to their heirs due to the tax. Sometimes a good business serving the community just has to go belly up.
This would be very rare fact pattern for a small business as the estate tax code rules allow up to a 10 year deferral of estate tax (actually it may be 15 years now) attributable to the value of the small business. Typically the business will find a way to finance the tax or sell the business and the tax deferral allows either to happen without fire sale conditions in place.
That business would need to be worth significantly more than the $5.5M estate exemption that is currently available. Plus if there is a surviving spouse, there typically would be no estate tax due if the business was left to the survivor to manage or sell.
The statement that estate tax is assessed on money that has already been taxed is not always correct. To the extent that assets have appreciated significantly over time but not been sold for cash, that appreciation would not have ever been subject to estate tax. Think real estate, particularly commercial real estate that has been held for 20-30 years (and depreciated along the way)...if you die holding the property the estate tax will be assessed on the value of the real estate which includes the appreciation as well as the depreciation, none of which has been subject to income tax.
A big issue with repealing the estate tax is what to do with the income tax basis step up that currently exists. That same piece of commercial real estate is also stepped up to FMV when it is taxed in an estate, and then can be sold the next day for zero capital gains tax. If you get rid of the estate tax and simultaneously eliminate the step up in basis, you will collect a lot of capital gains taxes that are currently not being paid. Think about small estates that are under $5.5M, they won't pay any estate tax under today's rules, but if you do away with the "step up" , those heirs will pay capital gains tax on the appreciation that occurred during the decedent's lifetime.
I don't think getting rid of estate tax is really that pressing of an issue and as it affects so few voters under today's higher estate tax exemption amounts (it is actually a credit against estate tax, not an exemption amount excluded from tax), I wonder why the right or the left care about the issue.
Quote: WizardofnothingInheritance tax is a scam- taxes were paid once already on it
It's always a scam. It was started in Britain
in the late 19th century to break up the
great estates of the aristocracy. It's an
underhanded way to take money away
from people. What's the point of building
a fortune if you can't leave it to your
children. In Britain, by the time the great
estates got thru selling off parts of their
money earning land to pay the taxes, the
estate could no longer support itself and
eventually went under. Destroying a
way of life that had been thriving nicely
for hundreds of years.
It depends on a few things. One is, if you believe people earn their fortunes in a vacuum on the basis of pure personal merit. A view, until recently, only held by crackpots. Somehow, the rich have been able to convince a lot of people this is true. I don't think many of them believe it. But they have abandoned any sense of noblese oblige, while others are more in the Carnegie, Buffet, Gates tradition.
If you believe wealth comes partly from personal merit, partly from luck, and partly from the resources your society provides to you, it makes perfect sense. Enjoy it while you're alive, then a big chunk is reinvested in the society that helped you, so future generations will enjoy the same or perhaps greater benefits.
Your choice. Do it through charities or trusts, or let the gov have a go.
You can still leave plenty to family if you want to. Lord knows, the world needs more Paris Hilton and kids who suffer from "affluenza" that causes them to commit vehicular manslaughter without fault.
Quote: Rigondeaux
If you believe wealth comes partly from personal merit, partly from luck, and partly from the resources your society provides to you, it makes perfect sense. Enjoy it while you're alive, then a big chunk is reinvested in the society that helped you, so future generations will enjoy the same or perhaps greater benefits.
This is the best argument I have read for keeping the inheritance tax. Re-examining my feelings, I think the ridiculously high percentage makes me so against it. If it was in the order of 10-20% I think it would make more sense to me.... less of a 'punishment' on the successful.
Quote: beachbumbabs
I'm betting impeachment proceedings will start within 36 months.
Can a single person start 'impeachment proceedings'? If you mean actually being impeached, I'd bet against it. $100.
Quote: RigondeauxMill favored a 100% inheritance tax. A bit extreme, but I'd prefer that to none.
It depends on a few things. One is, if you believe people earn their fortunes in a vacuum on the basis of pure personal merit. A view, until recently, only held by crackpots. Somehow, the rich have been able to convince a lot of people this is true. I don't think many of them believe it. But they have abandoned any sense of noblese oblige, while others are more in the Carnegie, Buffet, Gates tradition.
If you believe wealth comes partly from personal merit, partly from luck, and partly from the resources your society provides to you, it makes perfect sense. Enjoy it while you're alive, then a big chunk is reinvested in the society that helped you, so future generations will enjoy the same or perhaps greater benefits.
Your choice. Do it through charities or trusts, or let the gov have a go.
You can still leave plenty to family if you want to. Lord knows, the world needs more Paris Hilton and kids who suffer from "affluenza" that causes them to commit vehicular manslaughter without fault.
I don't really know much about stocks and bonds and all that stuff, so ignoring that --- don't all or almost all people who become wealthy (not through inheritance) by creating a large and successful business or invention or whatever else people do to get wealthy....have already benefited society with whatever product they're selling?
It's not like Bill Gates made his wealthy by sticking it to society....Microsoft has been a huge benefit to society. Business owners, small and large, do good for society.
I'm a little confused about "resources society provides you"....school both public and private are paid for. Loans and mortgages are paid for (through interest). Other than society paying for your product, I'm not really seeing how society provides resources for people that aren't paid for. (And even people purchasing your product, you are also in turn giving them a resource [whatever your product is].) I'm not saying society doesn't provide resources, I'm just not seeing what they are.
IMO, whatever amount of money is to be inherited or left to one's heirs (did I use that word correctly?), can be better off spent by few people (ie: the deceased's [wtf?] kids), rather than by many -- the govt. $1M can be much better spent by one person than $1 to 1 million people each.
Quote: RSI don't really know much about stocks and bonds and all that stuff, so ignoring that --- don't all or almost all people who become wealthy (not through inheritance) by creating a large and successful business or invention or whatever else people do to get wealthy....have already benefited society with whatever product they're selling?
And not just through whatever product they're selling or however they make money....but they also benefit society in many other ways. New businesses in an area (I think) would drive up the housing market nearby. They also provide income to their employees. They also purchase products from other companies (i.e.: grocery store buys food to resell from food companies like Coca Cola, Kellogg's, Lay's, etc). They oftentimes donate to charities, sponsor youth sports or other sponsor-able stuff. And they generate income for the govt (taxes).
It's not like Bill Gates made his wealthy by sticking it to society....Microsoft has been a huge benefit to society. Business owners, small and large, do good for society.
I'm a little confused about "resources society provides you"....school both public and private are paid for. Loans and mortgages are paid for (through interest). Other than society paying for your product, I'm not really seeing how society provides resources for people that aren't paid for. (And even people purchasing your product, you are also in turn giving them a resource [whatever your product is].) I'm not saying society doesn't provide resources, I'm just not seeing what they are.
IMO, whatever amount of money is to be inherited or left to one's heirs (did I use that word correctly?), can be better off spent by few people (ie: the deceased's [wtf?] kids), rather than by many -- the govt. $1M can be much better spent by one person than $1 to 1 million people each.
Bill Gate, Warren Buffet, Microsoft, Apple, Paigowdan, Paradigm, the racist, sexist, rapist Trump and many other made their wealth because of many benefits and protections from the society. They receive CONTINUOUS national/military defense protection, IP protection, law & order protection, use of infrastructures such as roads, highways, airports, shipping ports and many other numerous benefits; and they would be nobody without these protections and benefits. And because these protections and benefits, our national debt is now huge and EVERY single citizen of this country must somehow have to pay for this. And it is fair that the have more pay more, the have less pay less, and the have nothing pay nothing, and these should NOT be considered a punishment, but rather a RESPONSIBILITY.
The worst possible option is for the government to spend it though.....
In many ways they benefit more, from things like police protection and copyright laws. In fact these things often benefit them unfairly, due to corruption, like the ever-expanding copyright laws.
The degree to which they benefit society varies. If Bill Gates was never born, I think someone else or a group would have done almost the same thing, perhaps a little better or worse. Inventors often beat the competition by a nose.
Speculators benefit society very little. Maybe by slightly enhancing market liquidity, if we are being as charitable as possible.
Others get rich through greed. Landlord A is ruthless. Landlord B is compassionate. Landlord A becomes much richer, but the world would be a better place without him.
Some people become wealthy because they are unique visionaries who greatly benefit society, but the idea that this is the norm is a silly narrative.
A lot of times, wealth is a reward for taking risks and doing hard work. So it's good to have the carrot of wealth, so people are motivated to do things like start a business or invest in start ups. I don't think many people will be demotivated because they have to pay some taxes after they die. They haven't been so far.
Lastly, there's the question of what you want your society to look like in the future. Wealth and resources tend to concentrate. You can have at least SOME level of reset, and replay the game each generation. Or you can have a few people who start with everything because they were luckily born into families that established their wealth generations ago.
Do you shoot for aristocracy or meritocracy?
Quote: 777
And it is fair that the have more pay more, the have less pay less, and the have nothing pay nothing, and these should NOT be considered a punishment, but rather a RESPONSIBILITY.
To some extent I agree with you. But it's not a question of the have more paying more it's a question of how much more. And it's not really illuminating to look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Instead let's look at a guy who owns a chain of 6 pizza restaurants and is thinking about expanding. His current income is $275k per year. He is thinking about opening 2 more restaurants but it's expensive to do that. And on top of that the Feds are making noises about taxing anybody that makes that much at a 55% rate. And his state tax is another 10%. So now the guy looks at this and says: why am I going to knock myself out? What for? They're going to take 65% of my profit. So he doesn't open 2 more restaurants and there are fewer jobs and less competition in the local restaurant market which means prices won't go down and pizza won't get really good. Or else he opens 2 more restaurants and he cheats. He buys a Mercedes SUV and claims it's a business expense for driving around to his different restaurants.
And also, the loss of new jobs for Americans doesn't just come from immigrants. Jobs are greatly threatened by technology. There's no telling how high a % of what employees are now doing could be done in the near future by robots. I think those who say that all of these new technologies are going to be nothing but great for us are kidding themselves. Robots are a threat. More of a threat than a promise.
It is not the case that the wealthy as a group are not paying much of any share of the income tax revenue:Quote: 777Bill Gate, Warren Buffet, Microsoft, Apple, Paigowdan, Paradigm, the racist, sexist, rapist Trump and many other made their wealth because of many benefits and protections from the society. They receive CONTINUOUS national/military defense protection, IP protection, law & order protection, use of infrastructures such as roads, highways, airports, shipping ports and many other numerous benefits; and they would be nobody without these protections and benefits. And because these protections and benefits, our national debt is now huge and EVERY single citizen of this country must somehow have to pay for this. And it is fair that the have more pay more, the have less pay less, and the have nothing pay nothing, and these should NOT be considered a punishment, but rather a RESPONSIBILITY.
"In 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for only 2.7% of all returns filed, according to our analysis of preliminary IRS data. Their average tax rate (total taxes paid divided by cumulative AGI) was 25.7%. By contrast, people with incomes of less than $50,000 accounted for 62.3% of all individual returns filed, but they paid just 5.7% of total taxes. Their average tax rate was 4.3%." Pew
Quote: billryanThose statistics sound nice but show nothing. What percent of total income ( non-adjusted) did those 2.7 % make?
Those statistics show everything. They show that the top few percent of PEOPLE pay over half of all the taxes. They show that the bottom 3/5 of PEOPLE pay only 1/20 of all taxes collected. I am not saying this progressive tax structure is wrong, or bad. But PLEASE let us acknowledge that a small number of rich people subsidize the vast majority of Americans.
Quote: SOOPOOThose statistics show everything. They show that the top few percent of PEOPLE pay over half of all the taxes. They show that the bottom 3/5 of PEOPLE pay only 1/20 of all taxes collected. I am not saying this progressive tax structure is wrong, or bad. But PLEASE let us acknowledge that a small number of rich people subsidize the vast majority of Americans.
Yeah they do. Because they have all the money. Easy fix: Make sure money is distributed more evenly among the population. If the bottom 3/5 make more money, they will pay more taxes.
Also, Soopoo, you seem intent on wanting to bet on Trump's first term. If you're willing to lay 2 to 1 on him completing his first term, I am game.
Everybody must give 1 coconut per tree to the community each year. This is horribly unfair to poor Cron because he contribites 99% of the public coconuts.
The most amazing part is that Cron has convinced some of the other inhabitants to swallow this narrative.
I will give u 2 to 1 odds. I will put up $50 to win $25 for trump to finish his full first term.Quote: CanyoneroYeah they do. Because they have all the money. Easy fix: Make sure money is distributed more evenly among the population. If the bottom 3/5 make more money, they will pay more taxes.
Also, Soopoo, you seem intent on wanting to bet on Trump's first term. If you're willing to lay 2 to 1 on him completing his first term, I am game.
Quote: 777Bill Gate, Warren Buffet, Microsoft, Apple, Paigowdan, Paradigm, the racist, sexist, rapist Trump and many other made their wealth because of many benefits and protections from the society. They receive CONTINUOUS national/military defense protection, IP protection, law & order protection, use of infrastructures such as roads, highways, airports, shipping ports and many other numerous benefits; and they would be nobody without these protections and benefits. And because these protections and benefits, our national debt is now huge and EVERY single citizen of this country must somehow have to pay for this. And it is fair that the have more pay more, the have less pay less, and the have nothing pay nothing, and these should NOT be considered a punishment, but rather a RESPONSIBILITY.
All that stuff has already been paid for while alive. You need to pay for copyright/trademark/patent protection. Roads and highways are paid for through taxes. Not sure about airports or shipping, but I'm pretty sure they aren't free. Part of your taxes go to support your military, police departments, and everything else.
I'm not saying these things aren't helpful, just that you would have already paid for them while alive.....so I'm not buying the "society has benefited you, therefore you should be taxed when you die" argument. You've already given back whatever was supposed to be given back (taxes).
Quote: WizardofnothingInheritance tax is a scam- taxes were paid once already on it
No way. When did you get taxed on dying? It's an exit tax.
If you rise from the dead, you can get a full refund.
Quote: EvenBobIt's always a scam. It was started in Britain
in the late 19th century to break up the
great estates of the aristocracy. It's an
underhanded way to take money away
from people. What's the point of building
a fortune if you can't leave it to your
children. In Britain, by the time the great
estates got thru selling off parts of their
money earning land to pay the taxes, the
estate could no longer support itself and
eventually went under. Destroying a
way of life that had been thriving nicely
for hundreds of years.
Quote: EvenBobWhat's the point of building
a fortune if you can't leave it to your
children.
So massive welfare is actually a good thing?
See, I figure if your children earned those millions of dollars, you should have been paying out the paychecks at the proper rate the whole time.
Quote: speedycrapI will give u 2 to 1 odds. I will put up $50 to win $25 for trump to finish his full first term.
We'll figure out the details by pm, will post final bet for those interested.
Quote: SOOPOOMany of the anti-Trumpers are worried about conflicts of interest with regards to hotels, clothing lines, Russian stock holdings, etc. I believe I saw that DJT plans to eliminate entirely the inheritance tax. That is billions in dollars that he will be able to leave to his kids without the government getting a piece. The other stuff is small peanuts compared to this.
I am against the inheritance tax. The money accumulated has of course already been taxed.
My liberal son says something like 'who cares'? He says if we need to collect taxes what better way than from dead multi-millionaires? (It doesn't kick in for 95+% of the population).
Anyway, any chance Trump successfully repeals the inheritance tax, then quits?
hell no! keep the inheritance tax!
the inheritance tax prevents oligarchs.
u want a handful of families controlling all the wealth in this country?
it should go back up to 67% as the top tier, instead of the 33% now. :mad:
arrrggg Bush Jr!
Quote: CanyoneroYeah they do. Because they have all the money. Easy fix: Make sure money is distributed more evenly among the population. If the bottom 3/5 make more money, they will pay more taxes.
Also, Soopoo, you seem intent on wanting to bet on Trump's first term. If you're willing to lay 2 to 1 on him completing his first term, I am game.
He is old. Any 70 year old has a not zero chance of dying or becoming sick enough not to finish a term. And he likely will be the target of Jihadists. I just do not think he will be impeached, and have a Republican controlled Congress both impeach him and convict him. I'll give you even money that he is not impeached in his first term. Even if he completes the term if it occurs while under impeachment you win. (I am not so sure about this bet, of course.... his executive order on immigration may very well be unconstitutional!)
Just humor me, Robin, how do we "Make sure money is distributed more evenly among the population"? Please answer Mr. Hood!
I'm guessing you were a Sanders fan?
Quote: SOOPOOHe is old. Any 70 year old has a not zero chance of dying or becoming sick enough not to finish a term. And he likely will be the target of Jihadists. I just do not think he will be impeached, and have a Republican controlled Congress both impeach him and convict him. I'll give you even money that he is not impeached in his first term. Even if he completes the term if it occurs while under impeachment you win. (I am not so sure about this bet, of course.... his executive order on immigration may very well be unconstitutional!)
Just humor me, Robin, how do we "Make sure money is distributed more evenly among the population"? Please answer Mr. Hood!
I'm guessing you were a Sanders fan?
1. yes I am a Sanders fan
2. You will get better answers if your question is not already ridiculing the issue debated
3. living minimum wage; estate tax, inheritance tax; no subsidies to billion dollar corporations; tax billion dollar corporations; excellent education and health care for every American child, no matter whose vagina it crawled out of
4. if you think even money on impeachment is fair with the Republicans controlling both houses, your confidence in Trump doesn't seem to be all that great :) (or you have high hopes that sane Republicans will turn on him)
Quote: onenickelmiracleThe reason is it's easy to remain powerful once you've become powerful. Monopolies suck, aristocracies suck, no mobility sucks. You have to fight to keep your place if you're still worthy to do it. It is still unfair because some just are able to beat it and it just hurts those that simply aren't prepared. .
Most of the aristocrats in Britain, who lived
in those big castles and houses, weren't
super rich. They were well off, but all their
wealth was in the land and houses and art
they inherited. They employed hundreds
and hundreds to work their land for a profit
and in today's money they were moderately
well off. When inheritance taxes came along,
it ruined most of them because they were
cash poor and had to sell off money making
parts of the estate. The taxes ruined the delicate
balance that had been going on for centuries.
It's not that I really believe in it, just it's written into the tax code, our government is counting on that money, just like they're counting on ours. Dont feel the need to let anyone subject to an inheritance tax off the hook, without first letting poor and middle class getting some justice. Sure an inheritance tax is not fair, but there's a lot unfair for everyone.Quote: EvenBobMost of the aristocrats in Britain, who lived
in those big castles and houses, weren't
super rich. They were well off, but all their
wealth was in the land and houses and art
they inherited. They employed hundreds
and hundreds to work their land for a profit
and in today's money they were moderately
well off. When inheritance taxes came along,
it ruined most of them because they were
cash poor and had to sell off money making
parts of the estate. The taxes ruined the delicate
balance that had been going on for centuries.
Quote: RSQuote: 777Bill Gate, Warren Buffet, Microsoft, Apple, Paigowdan, Paradigm, the racist, sexist, rapist Trump and many other made their wealth because of many benefits and protections from the society. They receive CONTINUOUS national/military defense protection, IP protection, law & order protection, use of infrastructures such as roads, highways, airports, shipping ports and many other numerous benefits; and they would be nobody without these protections and benefits. And because these protections and benefits, our national debt is now huge and EVERY single citizen of this country must somehow have to pay for this. And it is fair that the have more pay more, the have less pay less, and the have nothing pay nothing, and these should NOT be considered a punishment, but rather a RESPONSIBILITY.
All that stuff has already been paid for while alive. You need to pay for copyright/trademark/patent protection. Roads and highways are paid for through taxes. Not sure about airports or shipping, but I'm pretty sure they aren't free. Part of your taxes go to support your military, police departments, and everything else.
I'm not saying these things aren't helpful, just that you would have already paid for them while alive.....so I'm not buying the "society has benefited you, therefore you should be taxed when you die" argument. You've already given back whatever was supposed to be given back (taxes).
The society provides a platform for us to excel, and our success depends greatly on the stability of the government and the society. And how mush does it cost to keep the government running smoothly so that we all can enjoy a stable and law & order society? I don't have that answer, but one important fact that I know is the cost that keep our government running around the clock has resulted in trillion$ of national debt, and this debt will get bigger and bigger everyday. And for this reason, it is reasonable for the society to claim a large piece of the pie in our wealth after our death.
You can thank god, your spouse, your children, and your other relatives for your success. But without the stability of the government, you and the racist, sexist, and rapist Trump would probably be dirt poor by now. And in speaking of the racist, sexist, and rapist Trump, if there is no government regulation in dissolving debts in bankruptcy, Trump most likely be a homeless person and he would not have to worry about the inheritance tax issue.
Your house if paid off, the street is paid off, the government offices, military bases, airport, seaport... are all is paid off. So what? The cost that keep the society running around the clock has resulted in a gigantic national debt to the tune of trillion$. How can we payoff this debt? Where can a minimum wage worker find million$ to make contribution to help payoff the nation debt?
Quote: 777The society provides a platform for us to excel, and our success depends greatly on the stability of the government and the society. And how mush does it cost to keep the government running smoothly so that we all can enjoy a stable and law & order society? I don't have that answer, but one important fact that I know is the cost that keep our government running around the clock has resulted in trillion$ of national debt, and this debt will get bigger and bigger everyday. And for this reason, it is reasonable for the society to claim a large piece of the pie in our wealth after our death.
You can thank god, your spouse, your children, and your other relatives for your success. But without the stability of the government, you and the racist, sexist, and rapist Trump would probably be dirt poor by now. And in speaking of the racist, sexist, and rapist Trump, if there is no government regulation in dissolving debts in bankruptcy, Trump most likely be a homeless person and he would not have to worry about the inheritance tax issue.
Your house if paid off, the street is paid off, the government offices, military bases, airport, seaport... are all is paid off. So what? The cost that keep the society running around the clock has resulted in a gigantic national debt to the tune of trillion$. How can we payoff this debt? Where can a minimum wage worker find million$ to make contribution to help payoff the nation debt?
You're insinuating I'm against taxes or something like that. I don't have a problem with income being taxed, property tax, taxes on cigarettes or gas, and every other tax.
I just don't agree that there should be an inheritance tax, as that person's assets have already been taxed.
If the government can't get by and stay in the black with taxes, that sounds like a budgeting problem to me.
If you wanna spread propaganda on the Honorable Trump as a sexist/rapist/racist person, better to go spread your propaganda in the 2016 Election thread where you can get shot down again for making unsubstantiated assertions. It's hard to take someone seriously when they say things like that over and over again.
Like that bridge that was built in Alaska, and many other pork barrel projects.
Quote: RSQuote: 777The society provides a platform for us to excel, and our success depends greatly on the stability of the government and the society. And how mush does it cost to keep the government running smoothly so that we all can enjoy a stable and law & order society? I don't have that answer, but one important fact that I know is the cost that keep our government running around the clock has resulted in trillion$ of national debt, and this debt will get bigger and bigger everyday. And for this reason, it is reasonable for the society to claim a large piece of the pie in our wealth after our death.
You can thank god, your spouse, your children, and your other relatives for your success. But without the stability of the government, you and the racist, sexist, and rapist Trump would probably be dirt poor by now. And in speaking of the racist, sexist, and rapist Trump, if there is no government regulation in dissolving debts in bankruptcy, Trump most likely be a homeless person and he would not have to worry about the inheritance tax issue.
Your house if paid off, the street is paid off, the government offices, military bases, airport, seaport... are all is paid off. So what? The cost that keep the society running around the clock has resulted in a gigantic national debt to the tune of trillion$. How can we payoff this debt? Where can a minimum wage worker find million$ to make contribution to help payoff the nation debt?
You're insinuating I'm against taxes or something like that. I don't have a problem with income being taxed, property tax, taxes on cigarettes or gas, and every other tax.
I just don't agree that there should be an inheritance tax, as that person's assets have already been taxed.
If the government can't get by and stay in the black with taxes, that sounds like a budgeting problem to me.
If you wanna spread propaganda on the Honorable Trump as a sexist/rapist/racist person, better to go spread your propaganda in the 2016 Election thread where you can get shot down again for making unsubstantiated assertions. It's hard to take someone seriously when they say things like that over and over again.
There is a significant amount of wealth, if not the majority of it(I don't know what the percentage is) that has NOT been taxed until death. Any property bought that appreciated (for example), the appreciation has not been taxed, like the home purchased 40-50 years ago and lived in.
Any business growth in value, including the physical property (both the land itself and the building), the intrinsic value of the brand, the market value of inventory, has not been taxed.
The stocks bought and held, or especially stocks taken in lieu of pay at a favorable rate/option, are valued at the time of death, and usually have a huge untamed value if they've been held for at least a few years; none of those taxes are paid until the stock is sold or the death valuation is made.
And even then, many of those assets are taxed at a capital gains rate, not an income.tax rate; the capital gains rate is significantly lower than the tax bracket affected by inheritance tax, and has its own set of loopholes. Even farmland, the usual argument refuting this, has appreciated many times over in the last 100 years, without paying any tax on the appreciation.
My strong opinion is that these items tend to be the majority of assets held by those over the inheritance tax threshhold, because that's how they make and keep their money. They actively do these investments for just that reason (among others) to avoid paying taxes. I just don't have firm numbers to give you as to how much of it is untaxed vs. previously taxed.
Quote: HunterhillAs far as property goes you pay property taxes every year which increase based on the value,so I would argue that you have already paid taxes on that.
You can argue that, but property taxes go to.the county, not.the federal government, and the valuation almost.never reflects the market value unless the property has been sold recently - then the new owner.pays based on the sale price.
So yes, "taxes" have been paid,.but not received by the same entity that receives inheritance tax.
Tax accumulated wealth that has not been subject to any income/capital gains taxes during the decedent's lifetime. I don't know an argument as to why that doesn't make sense, but I am open to hearing it. Furthermore, I don't know a reasonable argument as to why the government should tax an estate more than the tax that would have been assessed if the decedent had liquidated their entire estate immediately before dying. But I am sure there are opinions that differ on this as well.
Quote: ParadigmOne concept that is being floated out there as a replacement to the inheritance tax is assessing capital gains tax on un-taxed appreciation.
I sure hope your threshold would be high. I wonder if the people with a distaste for faceless corporations are the same folks advocating an inheritance tax, then lamenting the disappearance of the family farm and corner hardware store.
I'm not a fan of the tax. It strikes me as being rooted in envy, with the government's rationale little beyond "Because we can."
So you have appreciated assets that you hold onto until your dead, why would your heirs be able to get the appreciation in those assets "tax free"? I agree that the dollars spent after tax to purchase the property shouldn't be taxed again under the concept that they already faced an income tax of some sort along the way, but that is not true of the appreciation of the asset during the decedent's lifetime. If you want to change the income tax rules on capital gains, that is a different discussion, but the inheritance tax isn't going away without some tax on appreciated assets or at a minimum, the cost basis of the asset being transferred to the heirs and they would pay capital gains when it is sold...by the way, this lack of step up is a really bad answer for small estates and surviving spouse's.
And those arguing the forced sale of the family farm or the hardware store due to estate taxes fail to consider the IRC 6166 Election that "finances" the current estate tax on small businesses over 10 or 15 year at very low interest rates. Small businesses are not being "fire sale liquidated" to pay estate taxes. Estate tax today only becomes a real liability for estates over $5.45MM. Let's say the vast majority of estate is made up of a small business valued at $10MM, you have a 40% estate tax assessed on $4.55MM or $1.820MM in estate tax, which you can finance over 15 years at low rates. If a "small business/farm" is really worth $10MM, they can figure out how to pay less than 20% of their value in transfer taxes, particularly when you consider that they may get some excess depreciation deductions for income taxes purposes based on the $10MM step up in tax basis of the assets that make up the small business.
Plus if you have a small business worth $10MM, you may want to get yourself some life insurance to fund your estate's illiquidity and if you structure that correctly, the life insurance proceeds won't be subject to income or estate tax...just free cash flow to the beneficiaries which they can use to fund the estate tax.
Quote: Canyonero
4. if you think even money on impeachment is fair with the Republicans controlling both houses, your confidence in Trump doesn't seem to be all that great :) (or you have high hopes that sane Republicans will turn on him)
I have little confidence in Trump. But to be impeached by what is technically your own party is a longshot unless his offense is egregious. The 7 country executive order ban has decreased my confidence in him making it through his first term.
Quote: ParadigmOne concept that is being floated out there as a replacement to the inheritance tax is assessing capital gains tax on un-taxed appreciation. This would be assessed as a capital gains tax equal to the tax that would have been assessed if the asset was sold for FMV at date of death. There would still be some exemption from the capital gains tax assessment for small estates like there is an exemption/credit amount against estate tax for small estates.
Tax accumulated wealth that has not been subject to any income/capital gains taxes during the decedent's lifetime. I don't know an argument as to why that doesn't make sense, but I am open to hearing it. Furthermore, I don't know a reasonable argument as to why the government should tax an estate more than the tax that would have been assessed if the decedent had liquidated their entire estate immediately before dying. But I am sure there are opinions that differ on this as well.
I can get behind this idea. If we believe that capital gains should be taxed, then I see no reason why the inherited securities cannot be taxed upon the death of the original owner.
Quote: SOOPOOI have little confidence in Trump. But to be impeached by what is technically your own party is a longshot unless his offense is egregious. .
Not to mention no president has ever
been removed from office by impeachment.
How many people who talk impeachment
know that. Do a test, ask somebody who
talks about it. I guarantee they have no
idea.
