The Capital-F Flat Captial-T Tax Flat Tax?

I thought that was a sales tax.

11/2/2008 8:32:28 PM

You're thinking of the Fair Tax.

11/2/2008 8:35:22 PM

Ah, right.

11/2/2008 8:47:12 PM

From the OP:

Quote :

"While I certainly believe that our government has no right to deny inheritance, I think there's plenty of moral justification for maintaining a significant estate tax."

Spare me and the rest of the world from your morals. In any event, how about considering the entire estate? I mean, this little to and fro (and I didn't read every post) seems to be disproportionately focused on money alone.

Concerning real estate, for example, it is yet another tax on items that have already been taxed. I mean, real estate is taxed when it's purchased, and then it's taxed annually from then on based on its value. And then some of you want to tax it again when it is passed on as an inheritance?

This is too many bites at the apple by Uncle Sugar, I say. In addition, I submit that the discussion of Morgans, Gateses, Buffetts, and the like as it relates to an estate tax is way off mark. The estate tax being discussed here is much more likely to negatively affect small family farms, other small business owners, and middle-class Americans than any would-be Rockefellers.

In summary, I can't think of a more punitive tax than the estate tax, nor can I imagine more of a disincentive toward entrepreneurship. At any rate, if heirs are not entitled to the full amount of wealth left to them by their forebears, how can you, Boone, Chairman Obama, and your ilk lay any claim to this wealth whatsoever?

11/3/2008 1:29:22 AM

Quote :

"The estate tax being discussed here is much more likely to negatively affect small family farms, other small business owners, and middle-class Americans than any would-be Rockefellers. "

There's a special exception in the law for farms, and the tax currently doesn't phase in until $2 million, and there are more exceptions on top of that. This notion it'll affect "small family farms" and "small businesses", as has already been discussed, is pretty ridiculous. So spare us your baseless assertions please.

11/3/2008 1:42:50 AM

^ Baseless? If you believe Democrats are going to lower taxes, you are a fool. Can you point to any national Democrat since, say, John Kennedy who passed a significant tax cut?

Chairman Obama's plan is to tax capital gains, "spread the wealth," and operate from his skewed sense of "fairness" concerning the estate tax and other taxes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8

Tax-related info:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TN0b0WR0d0

But just for shits and giggles, let's say I'm completely wrong. How will Obama pay for everything he has promised without raising every tax he can or ending every tax cut he can? The answer? Obama can't--so raise taxes he will.

And when I come back here to say, "I told you so," you gullible doofuses will howl, "SO WHAT!!!1"

11/3/2008 1:59:39 AM

^ are you mixing up your threads?

Your claim that the inheritance tax significantly affects family farms and small businesses is what's baseless.

Quote :

"But just for shits and giggles, let's say I'm completely wrong. How will Obama pay for everything he has promised without raising every tax he can or ending every tax cut he can? The answer? Obama can't--so raise taxes he will. "

Have you not been living in America these past few decades? With the exception of Clinton, pretty much every other president in recent memory has use deficit spending. It's hard to say what exactly Obama will do, considering that both he and McCain said the bailout would modify their proposed plans.

And secondly, if you're going to make presumptions on what Obama will do, then you have to take ALL of what he says he will do. If he can in fact transfer the Iraq expenses to Iraq, that'll free up plenty of money, combined with the revenue increases he's already proposed.

In any case, Obama has been much more specific than McCain in his plan, so it's ridiculous to imply that McCain would be any better, when McCain hasn't even remotely been able to explain where his mythical cuts would be coming from. So with "truthiness" being equal between the 2, i'd take Obama's plan any day.

[Edited on November 3, 2008 at 2:06 AM. Reason : ]

11/3/2008 2:00:47 AM

^ You'd take Chairman Obama's plan any day regardless. And I don't have to presume what Obama would do: (1) I look at his radical, far-left associations; (2) I listen to his own words: "[S]pread the wealth" and other unfortunate comments; and (3) I look at recent historical precedent: Bill Clinton's middle-class tax cut campaign promise come middle-class tax increase (oops!).

I'm telling you, Obama's going to take a page right out of the Clinton playbook--Clinton didn't suffer that much (unfortunately) for lying (again) about a tax cut and Obama probably won't either. Obama will get into office and say something like, "OH NOES!!!1 We didn't know how bad things really were--watch your wallet 'cause here come the taxes!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPbzvYQjjw8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd6n1Dz9i54

11/3/2008 2:22:49 AM

^ You realize the Clinton years were some of the best in entire American history? Saying Obama's like Clinton isn't going to hurt Obama.

And I would think of all people, you would be able to see through the blatant electioneering the whole Ayers/spread the wealth thing is.

And if you put your faith in historical precedent, you should be even MORE afraid of a McCain presidency. Republicans have risen the deficit more than democrats historically, and have gone back on their tax policy (bush 1), as well as entire foreign policy (bush 2) as much as anyone.

11/3/2008 2:31:52 AM

But one big difference between you and me is that I do not believe debt is good or bad--debt is but a tool. If one can service the debt and get a positive return, then great. If not, not so great.

And the point about Clinton is that he lied--again. But the Obamatose, like the Clintonites of the '90s, will simply shrug it off.

Watch your wallet--Chairman Obama, The Taxman, Cometh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd6n1Dz9i54



PS: And "Bush I" lost his re-election bid most likely due to his reversal concerning the "Read my lips: No new taxes" pledge.

[Edited on November 3, 2008 at 2:44 AM. Reason : .]

11/3/2008 2:39:18 AM

Quote :

" like the Clintonites of the '90s, will simply shrug it off."

If it happens, what would the appropriate response be?

Because the republicans have been FAR from perfect, more so than clinton, the past few years, so they're not an option either.

11/3/2008 2:44:48 AM

^ Sweet Jesus. Your type of attitude is the reason that many of these politicians lie to us in the first place--they know the faithful won't buck. Well, that's bullshit.

Bush (41) was wrong to go back on his tax pledge, and Bush (43) has been wrong to be such a big spender (among other things). You see, I have criticized and will continue to criticize officeholders that I support if they lie to me--some on your side would never do so under any circumstances.

[Edited on November 3, 2008 at 2:51 AM. Reason : .]

11/3/2008 2:51:08 AM

Wow hooksaw you were called the hell out and didn't skip a beat. gg.

So how exactly is there any basis to claim that the estate tax hurts small farms? You know, other than "BOOGITY BOOGITY DEMS ARE GONNA RAISE TAXES"

11/3/2008 9:04:44 AM

I like how he's upset people aren't criticizing Obama for things he hasn't done yet. Ha!

11/3/2008 10:04:11 AM

The inheritance tax will be an interesting test for Obama. Why?

Because it is very popular among liberals, but economists as a group are extremely skeptical.

There are two big reasons

1) The inheritance tax destroys capital almost exclusively. Big estates are almost all capital and would remain so if there was no tax. Therefore, its hard to imagine that inheritance taxes don't actually reduce economic output. Contrary to popular opinion other taxes are much iffier on their effect on the overall economy.

2) Estimates show that nearly as much money is spent avoiding the estate tax as is raised by it - creating enormous inefficiencies.

11/3/2008 10:23:09 AM

Iffier as in better or worse?

11/3/2008 3:33:46 PM

Iffier in the sense that it is not clear if they actually have large effects and indeed in which direction they go.

For example, relatively high taxes, say in the 50 - 60% range seem to have little effect on the labor supply of educated workers. There is some reason to think that high taxes might even increase labor supply.

If you add to that the fact that taxes can be used to reduce the deficit then the economic effect becomes ambiguous. Increasing taxes could slow growth or speed up growth.

Taxes on capital gains and dividends are a little more straight forward. It is likely that they have either zero net effect when used to reduce the deficit or a net negative effect on growth.

Inheritance taxes almost certainly slow growth even when used to pay the budget because you are directly reducing the nations capital stock. The only way they wouldn't is if people saved even more money when faced with inheritance tax so that they could give more to their kids. I find this implausible for the population as a whole.


As a note I always think of the baseline use of government funds is to reduce the deficit because I see no real evidence that government spending is constrained by tax revenues. The fact that Clinton cut spending and raised taxes, while Bush raised spending and cut taxes I think is even more evidence that spending is unconstrained.

11/3/2008 3:54:41 PM

Quote :

"What's the point of being extremely successful if you can't help make your child's life easier?"

Quote :

"If you bust your ass all your life part of the reward and satisfaction of that is making things better/easier for your family/children (if you so choose of course)."

I've seen several variations of this here, all equally ludicrous.

We're not trying to stop anybody from making their kids' lives easier. At a certain point, when the kid's life has already been made plenty easy, we just think it's reasonable to skim some off the top, just like we do with virtually every other transaction. Why inheritance is sacred when paychecks, purchases, lottery winnings, and large gifts are considered more acceptable targets, I have no idea.

Quote :

"People who earned more money than they can spend should be able to do whatever they please with it. "

Absolutely. They can buy a yacht -- which purchase could be taxed. They can buy a house -- which purchase would be taxed. They can give a giant gift to their nephew -- which would be taxed. And they can leave it to their family when they die -- which would be taxed.

Quote :

"You arent entitled to someone else money dipshit."

Except you don't really believe that, not unless you're outright anarchist. Sure, you might not think that you're entitled to receive cash money, but there's all manner of things that the government provides that even you feel very entitled to -- even though everyone else is paying for it, too. You feel perfectly entitled to police protection, even if you've never needed it. You drive on interstates paid for by people all over the country who will never drive on them. At the very least you (I hope) feel entitled to vote, even though elections cost money that has to be taken from everybody, even people that don't vote.

My point is that the argument you just used could be used against any tax, and if you're opposed to all of them, there's really not much point in discussing the particulars.

Quote :

"That's income you earned and were already taxed for."

But it's OK that you get taxed for it again when you spend it on a coffee mug, Ferrari, or private jet?

Let's be perfectly fair here: Every penny that changes hand in this country has already been taxed and will be taxed again. Your employer pays taxes on its money, of which you get a share, for which you are taxed. When you spend that money, it will be taxed. Depending on what you spend the money on, the thing may be taxed, too, every year, forever. When you sell that thing, the transaction will be taxed. Then, when you spend the money from selling it, it will be taxed AGAIN.

So either come straight out and say that there should only be one kind of tax (and then explain how that might work), or come up with some different reason why the estate tax is especially evil.

Quote :

"and you think that is ok moron?"

I don't know about him, but I think it's perfectly OK to tax someone getting a large sum of free money.

Quote :

"In summary, I can't think of a more punitive tax than the estate tax, nor can I imagine more of a disincentive toward entrepreneurship."

Explain this to me. Explain how some potential millionaire is going to sit and think, "Well, you know, I could go out and make millions of dollars, but then when I leave it to my kids the government is just going to take a cut, so I guess instead I just won't make any money."

Quote :

"At any rate, if heirs are not entitled to the full amount of wealth left to them by their forebears, how can you, Boone, Chairman Obama, and your ilk lay any claim to this wealth whatsoever?"

The same way government lays claim to any other kind of wealth, because as much as you want it to be different, the estate tax is pretty similar to most other kinds of tax: When a transaction happens, Uncle Sam gets a piece.

---

Quote :

"Is no one interested in explaining to my why an estate tax is preferable to a wealth tax? "

I've actually been giving it some thought. I'm curious as to how this mechanism would affect purely middle- and lower-class families, and how it differs appreciably from another property tax.

11/3/2008 4:57:39 PM

id like to not pay for public education anymore because I already finished it.

id rather them not tell me now to spend my money. If I want to give money to education I'll do it on my own.

11/3/2008 8:21:15 PM

Quote :

"id rather them not tell me now to spend my money. If I want to give money to education I'll do it on my own."

Would you donate money to road construction? To the police/fire departments? To the post office? To the military? If you did, and if everyone donated approximately the same percentage as you did, would it be adequate to fund these things?

People can't be trusted to donate to things that don't directly affect them. Hell, without higher authority, people can't be trusted not to treat each other like animals.

11/4/2008 1:59:34 AM

I'm pretty sure he was being facetious.

11/4/2008 9:03:35 AM

GrumpyGOP, you are right. It would be trivial to charge people for using roads, I have even read plans to charge for police and fire protection where each neighborhood votes to decide which police/fire company to hire with the balance coming out of association dues.

It would be impossible to invade Iraq on either charity or devise a fee to charge Americans for the priviledge.

11/4/2008 9:34:54 AM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure he was being facetious."

Even if he was, plenty of people say the exact same thing and mean it seriously.

Speaking of facetious, LoneSnark, I'm going to ignore that rambling farce for a moment in hopes that you will illuminate some things for me:

Quote :

"I'm curious as to how [accumulated wealth tax] would affect purely middle- and lower-class families, and how it differs appreciably from another property tax."

11/4/2008 12:55:51 PM

Quote :

"It would be impossible to invade Iraq on either charity or devise a fee to charge Americans for the priviledge."

THe solution to that is that we DON'T invade Iraq. We didn't have a standing offensive army for a long time, and it's arguable if we need it, if you're a libertarian or anarchist.

11/4/2008 1:09:46 PM

Quote :

"I'm curious as to how [accumulated wealth tax] would affect purely middle- and lower-class families, and how it differs appreciably from another property tax."

I told you. The untaxed individuals you name will help pay the tax through higher prices.

And it differs from a property tax in one dramatic way: it is often a surprise tax, just as death is often a surprise. This makes it difficult to plan in advance to allocate the funds needed to pay the tax and that inability to plan introduces inefficiencies and misallocation to the economy as a whole, which we all pay for through higher prices.

Now, while all this is demonstrably true, it is also very rare, thus while the deadweight loss is real, it should be small relative to the economy as a whole. Afterall, only once in a lifetime do people die, and even then most deaths are due to long term illnesses which give ample opportunity to plan the needed arangements, either to avoid the tax (and thus negate its effects) or minimize the harm (liquidating the company slowely at market prices rather than firesale).

11/4/2008 1:28:24 PM

ya i was joking.

sounds pretty retarded but I hear that donation line all the time.

it doesnt work and the country would fall over like a fat bitch.

11/4/2008 2:25:40 PM

Is there ever a scenario where, say the estate tax was at 30%, a death would necessarily lead to a 30% cut in the total assets of a business?

11/7/2008 3:44:53 PM