Welcome to EMUSE!

EmuseForum is your #1 forum for General Discussions, The weird & wonderful, Politics, Sexy Babes, Porn and more!

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Estate tax, still under attack.

Discussion in 'World News & Events' started by Nocturnal, Sep 28, 2005.

  1. Nocturnal

    Nocturnal Americana
    Premium

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,662
    Ratings:
    +116 /0 /-0
    It's so nice to see the conservative machine in motion. In a decade of some of the largest money outlays in recent history these assholes still insist on giving a break to the wealthiest among us.

    The current weakened estate tax only affects the wealthiest 2% in our nation. Furthermore it is estimated that the estate tax will bring in 400billion in revenue between 2001 and 2011. Hmm, 400billion, I wonder if we could use that much money.... (hint: Katrina + Iraq = ?????)

    I'm sure well get the usual elite apologists in here, crying about how it really is unfair to tax wealthy people. Why somebody that makes less than 50k a year, would care about a justifiable tax on people that make hundreds of times more than they do is beyond me. Wealthier individuals benefit more from society than the poor, it's a simple fact. Who derives a greater benefit from a public road, the factory owner, or the factory worker?


    http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108143,00.html

    http://www.networklobby.org/issues/estate.html
     
  2. Secret Squirrel

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,358
    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    I'm against the estate tax on principal, and because I hope to have enough someday that this will be an issue for my kids. I'm against it on principal because that money has all been taxed before, as income. It would be one thing to apply capital gains taxes to stocks and such that have increased in value and not been taxed while the guy was alive, but the estate tax is based on the total value of all assets, not just assets not previously assessed for taxes. Double taxation. It's wrong.
     
  3. JaMaiCa

    JaMaiCa Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,181
    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    Property/Income Tax should be thrown out. Sales Tax should be enough to cover most social programs.. the added taxes just work to help cover the interest on the loans Congress receives from the Fed. Only a slim percentage of any tax will ever see real use in a community.
     
  4. Nocturnal

    Nocturnal Americana
    Premium

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,662
    Ratings:
    +116 /0 /-0
    Why is double taxation wrong? It happens all the time, did you buy gas this week? Bamn, double taxation. Local/state taxes, Bamn, double. We need the money, and it slows down the accumulation of wealth at the top of society.

    Everyone gets fed these BS lines from conservative media types and become convinced of the essential unfairness of the system.

    A national sales tax just simply won't work, we couldn't afford it. Wealthier people must pay a larger percentage, it's a fact of life.
     
  5. Ironhorse

    Ironhorse Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    554
    Ratings:
    +13 /0 /-0

    I believe people should be taxed based on thier ability to pay.
     
  6. JaMaiCa

    JaMaiCa Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,181
    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    The point I made is that the banking system we have now only drains our efforts. If it was reformed all we would ever need is the Sales Tax.
     
  7. Ironhorse

    Ironhorse Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    554
    Ratings:
    +13 /0 /-0
    I'd sure like to hear you explain that one because that just sounds nuts. PM me.
     
  8. Asbestos Crayon

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,503
    Ratings:
    +81 /0 /-0
    I'm against it. I'm not rich. I do how ever don't want to be taxed on something I have helped my parents acquire. My parents paid taxes when they got it. Why should I have to pay taxes again on it when it passes to me? Beyond the jobs my parents have worked, I have helped them increase their wealth substantially by helping them around the properties we own by doing maintenance work. So the government wants to tax me twice now.
     
  9. Nocturnal

    Nocturnal Americana
    Premium

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,662
    Ratings:
    +116 /0 /-0
    see my above post, the fact that this is the only "double" tax that people complain about is proof the concern over it is merely propaganda,

    also I have no idea as to the size of your parent's fortune, but I'd be surprised if you were in the top 2%
     
  10. Viceroy

    Viceroy Nute Gunray

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,471
    Ratings:
    +115 /0 /-0
    It's funny...if this was gonna happen in Britain I would be utterly opposed to it. However, it's in America, plus you know what the saying is. "If Bill O'Reilly's for it, I'm against it." and vice versa.
     
  11. Nocturnal

    Nocturnal Americana
    Premium

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,662
    Ratings:
    +116 /0 /-0
    vice versa? I don't think Oreilly Factors in your opinion before making a stance ;)
     
  12. Milkymilk

    Milkymilk Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    Heh, this is where yet again, im neither liberal or conservative, ugh... Yet both sides will hate my views.

    Im in favor of taxing that upper 2%. :a liberal opinion. Make the rich pay.

    But also there should be tax penalties for everyone, rich and poor, who has children based on how many children they have. : Not liberal or conservative just an idea hated by everyone since people without many children make up a tiny amount of the population.


    Just like the rich person who uses public roads more because he owns a company.. so does the poor person with 12 kids who sends them to public school.. In fact people with litters of kids, use more resources then anyone, and it's lame that people without kids have to pay 12x the amount to cover for them. Now us non kidhaving people are vastly outnumbered and thus have less voting power, so it will never happen.

    I mean think about it, I dont have kids, yet I pay for every tax relating to schools, roads, etc for other peoples children, and those people get tax write offs! BS.
     
  13. Nocturnal

    Nocturnal Americana
    Premium

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,662
    Ratings:
    +116 /0 /-0
    I agree, well sort of, any sort of punitive work should be activated after 2 kids, that way the poor are allowed to afford offspring also

    However, use of birth control would have to be free and actively encouraged. We are headed the other way currently, with less birth control funding/education.
     
  14. Maverick

    Maverick Registered voter

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,116
    Ratings:
    +72 /0 /-0
    That is what Bill Clinton said when he raised taxes.

    I thought I'm ok (since I only made about 20K at the time) but, when I got my profit sharing check there it was, 35-40% off the top of my check. Sweet!
     
  15. bergshadow

    bergshadow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,280
    Ratings:
    +48 /0 /-0
    The government provides one hell of a service when it transfers such large piles of wealth safely into the formal ownership of people who have done nothing, necessarily, to earn or acquire or even comprehend them, based on designations by dead people and/or technicalities of law.

    If it chooses to assess a large fee for such a service, I don't think anyone has any kick.

    There's a simple way to avoid paying estate tax: follow the implications of Andrew Carnegie's aphorism, "A man who dies rich dies disgraced".

    And many complicated ways: many options are available to rich people that reduce their exposure to that tax.

    Meanwhile, several attempts at reforming the estate tax to remove some obvious problems have run afoul of the neo-cons, who wish to make it as onerous as possible in order to build a constituency for its complete abolition. I think in that case the government service supplied should be abolished as well - government-backed ownership of large estates should simply vanish upon the death of the owner.
     
  16. BurritoClock

    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    "Robin Hood is the most immoral and contemptible of all human symbols, he reflects the idea that need is the source of rights, that people only have to want—not to produce, and that men have claim to the unearned but not to the earned."
     
  17. shade

    shade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    6,013
    Ratings:
    +198 /0 /-0
    Lets look at this from a purely economic standpoint. Person A pays income tax and saves money their whole life. Person A days and their money is in a will to person B. That money was already taxed. Why should it be taxed again?

    Last I checked it only brings in a couple billion a year.

    Because your statement is completely inaccurate. My grandparents are a perfect example.
    1: They individually never made more than $50k a year. They both worked full time. Grandma was a 2nd grade teacher for 35 years. Grandpa was in management at an insurance company in Indiana.
    2: They do not even call me. They write letters because stamps cost less than long distance. They lived their entire life like this.
    3: They have millions saved.
    4: They paid taxes on that income for their entire lives.

    Now, please, tell me why the government is "justified" in taking half of my dad and uncle's inheritance. Why is it justified? Tell me.

    If you want to go after something, stop sending my grandparents a SOCIAL SECURITY check. My Grandpa says "I don't need... but I sure wont send it back." (because he paid for it in taxes his whole life).

    Who paid for that road? Click on my sig and remind yourself of the effective tax rates.

    Its not double taxation. You exchanged money for a product. YOU do not pay tax on that. The gas station does. You just happen to see it. Companies owe the government a % of their revenue in the case of sales tax.

    True.

    It really doesnt take much to be in the top 2%. Heck, liberals constantly quote that 11-13% of the country is in poverty. If you graduate high school you are already in the top 80%. Graduate college and you are usually starting in the top 50-30%. I make more than the average income for a person (regardless of years of experience) in Plano, which I just happened to learn is supposedly the 5th wealthiest area in the country. I graduated just this summer, work hard, and am intelligent. Shocking. I am not top 2% yet but I hope to be in a couple years.
     
  18. bergshadow

    bergshadow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,280
    Ratings:
    +48 /0 /-0
    shade
    The government is not taking anything from your thrifty grandparents. The fact that it is an inheritance at all - that it is safely recorded and its ownership transferable, that it has been protected all this time, including maintaining the value of the currency in which it is denominated - is a government service and a very significant one.

    You tell me how your dad and uncle are "justified" in getting a penny of it. In capitalist economic theory, they should be earning what they receive - not counting on the government to transfer (by force) unearned, market-distorting wealth into their pockets for free.

    It takes beating out 98% of your fellow citizens in wealth accumulation.
    That whole argument just makes no sense; the money has not "already been taxed". If I pay income tax, and then buy something and pay sales tax, have I been doubly taxed on that money? Do dollar bills carry ID numbers on them so that they might only be taxed once, and then circulate tax free? As long as the money remains in the possession of the person taxed already, it is not taxed again; when it is transferred, the new exchange may or may not involve taxation.

    Imagine the sales tax idea if such "double taxation" were thought sensible as a concept: each item purchased would be another layer of taxation on that money.
     
  19. Secret Squirrel

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,358
    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    This strikes me as a gross misrepresentation of capitalism, to imply that under pure capitalism assets would not be passed on to heirs at the time of a man's death.

    I know you disagree with it, but many of us feel it's unfair to punish those who do manage through hard work and savings to make it to the top 2%. Most inherited wealth is gone within two generations of when it was first earned. Most people in the top 2% got there on their own merit, not because they inherited it.

    Liberals say that it's conservative propoganda to talk about double taxation, but why can't I turn it around and say it's liberal propoganda that the rich should have to pay more because they can afford to? It's different opinions on how to run a government. Neither side is inherently right or just, it's just a matter of personal opinions.

    In an ideal world everything would be pay as you go, similar in some respects to the national sales tax idea. Don't tax my income, tax my spending. It would reward savings and discourage people from racking up massive debt. Sadly we're too far gone down the line of income tax for this to ever happen.
     
    #19 Secret Squirrel, Sep 29, 2005
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2005
  20. Nocturnal

    Nocturnal Americana
    Premium

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,662
    Ratings:
    +116 /0 /-0

    The fairness of it is really a seperate argument, we can't afford to abolish it. Our country is headed towards bankruptcy with these cut-tax and spend republicans at the helm. All the sources I found agree with the 400 billion number.

    You have economic training, you know that money needs to be spent in order to promote growth and raise income levels.

    As far as the gas not being a double tax. Tsk tsk Shade, I know you are well aware of how taxes work, a tax levied on a seller will be almost completely passed on to the buyer in the case of a product with inelastic demand (people have little choice but to buy gas). Even in cases where people have a choice to buy the product the tax is shared.

    So yes, Gasoline taxes are double taxes.

    Estate tax IS a measure of wealth redistribution. It discourages massive family fortunes, encourages people to actually spend their money, and it is not a financial burden.

    I disagree with the top %2 number, it does take a lot to get there, even more so in the top %1 or 1/2%, perhaps there should be a discussion on raising the cutoff of the tax, but abolishing it altogether is just another handout to those that need to pay a bigger share.

    Pure capitalism does not exist, producers and owners of capital do not operate in perfectly competitive markets. The truly free market is a myth. If everything was perfectly competitive then we wouldn't need controls of this sort.

    This issue has 2 components, the philosophical aspect or "fairness" and the reality of "affordabilty". You can debate all day about whether or not it is fair to tax the rich more, but I don't see how you can say we should even taxes out and push our nation to bankruptcy.

    To touch back on the issue of fairness,

    Wealthy people benefit much more from being in a society than the poor. Their fortunes depend on it, not only from an income stance, but for protection as well. A poor farmer wouldn't be much worse off if he was removed from society, but the owner of a computer company would lose everything.

    When I'm on my deathbed and I look back on my life I won't mind paying a big chunk of my leftover riches. I willl be greatfull for the opportunity to lose half of my multi-million dollar estate to taxes. I'm paying society back for the chance to have lived very well and accumulated that much wealth. Society allowed me to go to school, work for a good company, and kept the poor happy enough so they didn't revolt and kill me.
     
    #20 Nocturnal, Sep 29, 2005
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2005

Share This Page