I misread the article. They still arent taxing estates worth less than 3.5 million.

12/3/2009 6:25:01 PM

Quote :

"would you be ok with the govt seizing your car today? Assuming you have it paid off."

It's paid off. Depends on the reason why, doesn't it?

Quote :

"So in the end the person who worked, purchased, paid taxes on the stuff they accumulated decided what they wanted to do with THIER STUFF.. Not mcdanger.. which drives people with your mindset nuts."

Didn't say I wanted to decide where it went. Just saying that you currently don't have full control over YOUR STUFF, legally, morally, or otherwise. When it comes to money, that's a resource that can do public good. Sitting on it, when it's a huge amount, can and does affect people adversely.

Quote :

"I could certainly do anything I wanted with my property that wasnt illegal or harm others."

How does the increasing concentration of wealth in the top 1% NOT harm others? The money comes from somewhere.

Quote :

"You're free to do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Plain and simple. Everyone is a wage-slave, if you want to view it like that. Surviving has traditionally been a pretty tough thing. Ten thousand years ago, it was very tough. Now, it's pretty easy. You have to work to live in most circumstances, but no one is forced to work. You're free to do nothing and die on the street, if you like. Freedom doesn't mean you're entitled to anything. It just means you're able to live your life as you want without another individual (or government) coming in and forcing you to do something."

Wonderful adolescent libertarian monologue. How is it relevant to what we're discussing? Also, how does holding an excessive amount of a resource NOT cause harm? I really wish you half-baked libertarians would actually read Locke, because then you'd figure out that the guy whose definition of liberty you're pushing to the limit did not do this himself (find Locke's discussion of the water seller; also referred to as "locke's proviso").

Yet again, "freedom" and "liberty" here means "fuck you; got mine; gonna do what the fuck I want and harm who the fuck I want so long as it's legal". Not surprisingly, when the rich control public policy (read: always), this sort of harm is legal.

Quote :

"No matter the amount of money passed down no one has the right to take this money away"

Think twice about this statement. No matter the amount? Heh.

Quote :

"HAHAHAHAHA...this McDanger character is quite amusing."

Stop playing the idiot, Mark.

12/3/2009 6:32:13 PM

Quote :

"The estate tax was not designed to "get rid" of anyone."

Oh, it most certainly was. You are just too ignorant to realize that.

12/3/2009 6:40:25 PM

Quote :

"Wonderful adolescent libertarian monologue. How is it relevant to what we're discussing? Also, how does holding an excessive amount of a resource NOT cause harm? I really wish you half-baked libertarians would actually read Locke, because then you'd figure out that the guy whose definition of liberty you're pushing to the limit did not do this himself (find Locke's discussion of the water seller; also referred to as "locke's proviso"). Yet again, "freedom" and "liberty" here means "fuck you; got mine; gonna do what the fuck I want and harm who the fuck I want so long as it's legal". Not surprisingly, when the rich control public policy (read: always), this sort of harm is legal."

It's relevant because you asked how being a "wage-slave" was freedom. I then explained to you how I view freedom. You didn't comprehend anything I said. It looks like the best you could come up with is a couple of personal attacks, a reference to Locke which doesn't support your position (or refute mine) in any way, and finally, a poorly constructed rant that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. You missed the point entirely with that last part, because the whole idea is that harming someone else shouldn't be legal at all.

12/3/2009 7:00:26 PM

I always thought the estate tax was bullshit. Why not just tax the transfer of wealth to a trust fund baby as any other "capital gains".

12/3/2009 7:04:30 PM

Quote :

"Stop playing the idiot, Mark."

I would only be playing the idiot if I had thought you were being serious with that quote.

Quote :

"The person that owned those resources died. It's better for society to see that money flow back into funding things for the public good, in my opinion, then to ensure that a bunch of trust fund babies get to relax without working."

I mean come on, who in the right mind believes that?

12/3/2009 7:05:19 PM

In my opinion if i save all my life to give my kids a better life its bullshit for the government "punish" my responsible behavior by taking a big chunk out my estate at death. Is the capital gains my children will pay, the sales tax from purchases they make, and/or property taxes not be enough???

12/3/2009 7:11:59 PM

^not in the socialist republic of america.

12/3/2009 7:15:33 PM

Quote :

"It's relevant because you asked how being a "wage-slave" was freedom. I then explained to you how I view freedom. You didn't comprehend anything I said. It looks like the best you could come up with is a couple of personal attacks, a reference to Locke which doesn't support your position (or refute mine) in any way, and finally, a poorly constructed rant that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. You missed the point entirely with that last part, because the whole idea is that harming someone else shouldn't be legal at all."

Explain to me how your position isn't hiding behind legality? How does your position incorporate indirect harm that comes about due to the mismanagement and mis-allocation of resources? If somebody has a disproportionate amount of wealth and somebody else goes without, does this constitute harm to you?

12/3/2009 7:23:18 PM

Quote :

"In my opinion if i save all my life to give my kids a better life its bullshit for the government "punish" my responsible behavior by taking a big chunk out my estate at death. Is the capital gains my children will pay, the sales tax from purchases they make, and/or property taxes not be enough???"

To be fair, if you "save all your life" to "give your kids a better life," then I think you have missed the boat if you only give them the money when you die. I'm just sayin

12/3/2009 7:26:07 PM

We routinely tax money when it's transferred. When your employer transfers it to you, it's taxed. When you transfer it to the guy behind the cash register at a store, it's taxed. I don't understand why anybody is up in arms about this particular variation on the theme. It's especially confusing given that nobody here has any damn $3.5 million. And I'm downright flabbergasted that people are trying to sell a woe-is-me story about a kid whose dad died with $10 million "only" being able to get $5 million.

I mean, I get it that a man should be entitled to the fruits of his labor and all, but virtually everybody here (except maybe Megaloman, who with any luck is in a padded room wearing a Hannibal Lecter-style mask) is OK with paying some taxes. Clearly your devotion to the ideal isn't perfect. So why you freak out over estate taxes is, I admit, beyond me.

12/3/2009 7:42:50 PM

^ The problem is, this is treated as a special tax. It isn't taxed like income, or capital gains, and there's also the fact that since most of an estate is usually tied up in investments or property, these things will continue to be taxed just by staying right where they are.

The argument of stopping trust fund babies also might be more convincing if the vast majority of wealth didn't only lasts 3 generations and if anyone actually had a right to care whether you live off investments or busting you ass. The argument that this encourages investing might hold water except for the fact that it also encourages wealth hiding, and discourages keeping money in investments since you have to sell those investments off to pay the tax.

Never mind that the estate tax is detrimental to a lot of things that could be a public good. Say for example, instead of using the government to bully people into giving up their land, a rich environmentalist decided instead to buy up a bunch of habitat to preserve it. When he dies, his kids, unless they have a lot of their own money will likely have to sell off parts of that land just to be able to keep some of it.

Ideally, if they wanted to tax inheritance, then they should tax it as income or capital gains. Even better, they should only tax the money and real property should go untaxed since it's somewhat difficult to sell 30% of your house and they'll be collecting property taxes on that anyway.

12/3/2009 7:59:16 PM

Quote :

"a rich environmentalist decided instead to buy up a bunch of habitat to preserve it. When he dies, his kids, unless they have a lot of their own money will likely have to sell off parts of that land just to be able to keep some of it."

This is not true at all. Land designated for conservation isn’t subject to the estate tax .

12/3/2009 8:03:48 PM

Quote :

"The argument of stopping trust fund babies also might be more convincing if the vast majority of wealth didn't only lasts 3 generations and if anyone actually had a right to care whether you live off investments or busting you ass."

Where the wealth does last, it tends to carry with it an undue level of influence. We never would have gotten saddled with a George W. Bush presidency otherwise.

As to the "if anyone had a right" question...look, I think we're all in agreement that some level of taxation is necessary for even a minimalist version of government. Either the government does have the right to collect taxes or it doesn't. How does it have more of a right to tax certain transactions than it does others?

If it has the right to take taxes then it has to decide where to take them from. At the end of the day, I'd rather have them take it away from people who are dead and can't use it / kids who didn't earn it than from someone who is busting their ass to work because they're still the fuck alive.

12/3/2009 8:19:49 PM

Quote :

"Explain to me how your position isn't hiding behind legality? How does your position incorporate indirect harm that comes about due to the mismanagement and mis-allocation of resources? If somebody has a disproportionate amount of wealth and somebody else goes without, does this constitute harm to you?"

It has nothing to do with legality. There are plenty of laws on the books that I'm opposed to, precisely because they're victimless crimes, i.e. they are "crimes" that don't actually hurt anyone except the person committing the crime. I don't know if that addresses your point because I don't know exactly what it would mean to "hide behind legality."

My position doesn't incorporate indirect harm from mismanagement, because I think you should be free to mismanage your own assets. If someone owns 100 sheep and only sheers wool off of 99 of them, and someone in the same town freezes to death, should we punish the guy who owns the sheep because he didn't sheer the wool, sell it to a clothes manufacturer, which would have then made clothes for the guy that froze? It doesn't make any sense to me. The guy already got punished because he didn't make as much money as he could have if he sheered all 100 sheep. If that's a poor example, then provide a more appropriate one.

So no, I don't think having "excess" (and honestly, I don't know how "excess" is being defined...is it more than needed for personal use? more than is being actively used for production?) resources when other people are going without constitutes harm. Unless the person obtained the resources through illegal means, he didn't harm anyone, he got the resources in a legitimate way. He bought them, or gathered them, or paid someone to gather them. Harm doesn't mean "not giving someone something." I disagree with the idea that the more you produce for the rest of the population to consume, the more you should be taxed. Why punish production?

12/3/2009 8:31:07 PM

Quote :

"Better education would have a high upfront cost, but once you get poor people educated they pass the value of that education on to their kids and they need less government support. "

your same people don't support a federal education system where everyone gets the same good education. instead everything is zoned so that rich kids go to schools with the best teachers and resources and all the poor kids are put in schools with the other poor, bad kids in their poor, bad neighborhood.

Quote :

"consumption tax"

again. the econom would not exist without consumption. we want to encourage consumption and tax the "stacking of dough" that doesn't do anyone any good.

Quote :

"You're free to do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else."

keeping all the money hurts other people. How can you not see that?

Quote :

"If the tax cannot be eliminated and merely reformed then the tax should be restructured to a certain amount per beneficiary not per estate in whole"

This would give people incentive to run up thier bank accounts as high as they can and stack all the money so that they could pass it to loved ones. With the estate tax they, instead have an incentive to spend or donate that money before they die, boosting the economy.

Quote :

"then how can one reasonably suggest the government would be? Especially when acknowledging that the the x hundreds of thousands of dollars would do negligible good based on our trillion dollar deficits and would only serve to further the ethos of wasteful spending that undeniably occurs. "

the government misspending money is a seperate arguemnt. we know they need to spend money.

Quote :

"This is THE point. But the far-left loons here and elsewhere have never been able to legitimately answer this question--and they never will. The only thing they have to offer is normative statements that represent nothing more than class warfare and apples-and-oranges horseshit analogies."

because the government that gave the dead the opportunity to earn all the stuff they had is in debt and NEEDS funds to survive or else everything could fall apart. Everybody wins because the kids who were willed in get plenty of money and so does the government.

Quote :

"uh..where do you think your money goes that you're 'saving' or investing? How do you think the bank can afford to give you interest on that money? Is it because your cash is so pretty to look at in the vault that they figured they'd just add to it from their own pockets?"

where do you think money spent goes?

Quote :

""punish" my responsible behavior "

working to luxurify the lives of your adult kids is not responsible behavior. far from it.

Quote :

" should we punish the guy who owns the sheep because he didn't sheer the wool, sell it to a clothes manufacturer, which would have then made clothes for the guy that froze?"

if he was negligent in knowing not using the sheep would leave somebody without clothes then yes, manslaughter.

12/3/2009 8:58:42 PM

Quote :

"keeping all the money hurts other people. How can you not see that?"

maybe because you have offered no proof to the contrary?

Quote :

"With the estate tax they, instead have an incentive to spend or donate that money before they die, boosting the economy."

Or they have an incentive to hide that money elsewhere, where it does even less good.

Quote :

"because the government that gave the dead the opportunity to earn all the stuff they had is in debt and NEEDS funds to survive or else everything could fall apart."

so, because the government is fucked up and can't manage its funds, we should take money away from people who managed their money well? wow. what a great idea.

Quote :

"Everybody wins because the kids who were willed in get plenty of money and so does the government."

Except for the guy that wanted to leave a house to his kids to keep it in the family, only there wasn't enough money to pay the immoral tax, so the house has to be sold off.

Quote :

"working to luxurify the lives of your adult kids is not responsible behavior. far from it."

So, blowing all your money is now the definition of responsible? now it all makes sense...

Quote :

"if he was negligent in knowing not using the sheep would leave somebody without clothes then yes, manslaughter."

Yes, and if we could all know the exact consequences of even the most seemingly inconsequential actions, then I would be a millionaire in a couple of weeks

12/3/2009 9:41:03 PM

Quote :

"working to luxurify the lives of your adult kids is not responsible behavior. far from it."

Clarify this please.

12/3/2009 9:43:49 PM

^^^So, if I owned a farm and I allowed it to lay fallow, I should be charged with manslaughter for the death of anyone who died from starvation?

12/3/2009 9:53:05 PM

I can't believe some of the views posted in this thread....kind of scary

12/3/2009 10:00:53 PM

Nah, what's scary is that the President and Congress hold a lot of the same views.

12/3/2009 10:17:05 PM

^ Was that ok with Bush and 'pubs were in control of the WH and Congress? Just to clarify why you said that.

12/3/2009 10:18:11 PM

I don't think Bush and the GOP held the views we've been talking about. You wouldn't hear Bush or Republicans advocating redistribution of wealth on a massive scale, even if their government spending through military or other expenditures resulted in budget deficits. On the other hand, congressional Democrats show support for that kind of thing on a daily basis.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 10:27 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2009 10:25:59 PM

Quote :

"Nah, what's scary is that the President and Congress hold a lot of the same views."

This is an unqualified statement, though. And your response still suggests that it's ok when one side does this, but not for the other. Just sayin'.

12/3/2009 10:28:28 PM

Quote :

"It's especially confusing given that nobody here has any damn $3.5 million. And I'm downright flabbergasted that people are trying to sell a woe-is-me story about a kid whose dad died with $10 million "only" being able to get $5 million."

It isn't just about having a certain amount of money in the bank. It is the net worth of everything that person owns.


Story time...
----------------------------------------------
Everyone loves to hate on "the rich", but I will say that this tax doesn't necessarily hit on people's traditional idea of "rich", or at least the "greedy corporate fat-cats" that liberals love to hate.

Example 1:
Several years ago when the stock market was up, my grandmother's estate would have been over the estate tax limit if she had died. She grew up during The Depression, so she's pretty frugal. Had she died when the stock market and housing prices were up, she would have been over the limit for two reasons:
1: Stock
2: Land -- back in the early 50s, my grandmother and grandfather built a house in what because an affluent area. When they bought it, lots was cheap so they got two lots (on a small creek of a river, so it is considered "waterfront", which jacks the value up a bunch). The house isn't a McMansion, or anything anyone could consider large -- ~1800sq. ft. (originally smaller but they added a small bit when they had kids). Heck, the electrical outlets are the originals from the '50s; most don't even have grounding plugs. Up until she couldn't drive, my grandmother drove a 1992 Dodge Spirit....no stereotypical BMW or Mercedes or whatever for "rich people".

The stock account had been there for decades, as my grandfather and his family occasionally dabbled in the market -- they bought blue-chip stocks like GE a long time ago and they performed well over the years....though not so well recently.

Neither he nor his wife ever really brought in huge sums of money through their jobs (quite the contrary!), but due to the stock market exploding in the 80s and 90s, and housing/real-estate prices increasing, their "net worth" would have been over the limit 2 years ago. With the current economic conditions her estate isn't currently anywhere close to the limit and I don't foresee it ever being there again, but my family was concerned that a good portion of my grandmother's estate might disappear overnight if she died. On an ironic note, all my of my family except me are left-leaning Democrats and I watched them get very nervous for awhile...I guess excessive taxes and redistribution of wealth are alright, as long as it doesn't detrimentally affect you personally...


Example 2:
My other grandmother (who also grew up during The Depression) owns several hundred acres of land. It has been in our family for at least 4 generations, possibly longer. Some of it is leased for farming (corn & soybeans), the rest is forest. Her only income, to the best of my knowledge, is the minimal amount from the leased farmland and social security. She has a small house out in the country and drives a late-80s Chevrolet POS.

I don't know the value of all the land, but I'd imagine that a few hundred acres of land isn't exactly cheap, even where this tract is located.

This grandmother does the bookkeeping for her church, and before that she worked on base doing some sort of administrative job, I think. Before he died, I believe my grandfather was an aircraft mechanic on base. So obviously, they didn't bring in huge sums of money.

The value of the land is the issue in this case -- because it sure isn't about a huge bank account...because there isn't any.
----------------------------------------------


Say for a moment that both of my grandmothers die, and somehow both of their estates are over the limit. Why is it fair that the government can come in and take a good portion of what they own, just because they died? This tax limit doesn't just affect "greedy corporate CEOs who drive Lamborghinis and have 5 mansions all over the country" -- it can certainly affect others who just happened to play their cards right, or had land passed down to them.

Does having a grandmother with a small bit of money mean that I'm rich? No...far from it. I make $10/hour and I'm lucky to make rent and pay my bills. My parents are in a similar situation.

Funny how people would consider my grandmothers "rich" due to the value of their assets rather than any sort of basis in income. I won't beat around the bush...one side having a small house on the river and the other having some land in the country is nice, and probably more than most Americans, but it isn't what I would consider "rich". One side happened to buy some property in the right spot at the right time while the other had it handed down through generations....the stock market and housing/real-estate bubble had more to do with it than anything else.


Anyone who thinks it is acceptable for the government to step into situations like this and grab some money just because somebody died can go fuck themselves with a rake.



As an aside...
Say my grandmother with the stock dies, and my parents get some (...since it gets split 3 ways between my father and his brothers). For kicks, let's assume the estate at the time of my grandmother's death is over the limit.

Now, say my parents decide to sell some of the stock they inherited. Since this has been around for decades, most of the money is going to be seen as a capital gain. So then they'd get hit with 1) Estate tax, and 2) huge capital gains taxes. ...wtf?!

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 11:21 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2009 11:06:17 PM

Why is it fair that the government can come and take a good portion of your paycheck just because you worked? Why is it fair that the government can come and take another portion of your money just because you own land/a car? Why is the situation of your grandparents any different?

The fact is that in either case, when they die their heirs receive a bunch of land, and in the first case they receive a bunch of stock. Maybe it's less than what the grandparents had, but it's a damn sight more than what the inheritors had.

Quote :

"my family was concerned that a good portion of my grandmother's estate might disappear overnight if she died. On an ironic note, all my of my family except me are left-leaning Democrats and I watched them get very nervous for awhile"

This kind of makes your family sound like a bunch of dicks. That kind of obsession with inheritance is part of the problem.

What I will grant, though, is a level of discomfort with a situation that might force people to sell off land that has been in their family for some time.

---

I'm also curious as to how you're coming to the conclusion that either would be above the 3.5 million mark. In one case you straight up admit you don't know the value of the assets.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 11:22 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2009 11:21:22 PM

Boo hoo I am not getting as much free stuff as I could be getting

12/3/2009 11:25:23 PM

Quote :

"This kind of makes your family sound like a bunch of dicks."

I just shook my head as I watched it happen.

Quote :

"I'm also curious as to how you're coming to the conclusion that either would be above the 3.5 million mark. In one case you straight up admit you don't know the value of the assets."

In the past, the estate tax limit was lower. See here for more details:
http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/estatetax/f/estatetaxrate.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

One grandmother certainly isn't over the $3.5-million mark, especially not with the recent stock market and real-estate pricing collapse.


Apparently in 2001 (earliest date I can find data on, in a 30-second Google session...) the limit was $675,000 and has grown steadily since then. While I don't explicitly know the value of the land, ~600 acres, anywhere in the US, was probably going to be worth that much...obviously depending on location, value of money, real-estate pricing, zoning, etc. As for the current limit of $3.5-million and the pricing of land these days.....I'm not sure either way.

I posted the above as examples of how the tax can detrimentally affect people who really didn't do much in life to accumulate vast amounts of wealth, but could possibly stand to lose a decent bit of what they do own.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 11:34 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2009 11:26:40 PM

people talking about having to sell houses to pay taxes are forgetting that you keep the first 3.5 million. taxes aren't going to be more than that unless its like 300million worth of houses.

12/3/2009 11:52:27 PM

Quote :

"I posted the above as examples of how the tax can detrimentally affect people who really didn't do much in life to accumulate vast amounts of wealth, but could possibly stand to lose a decent bit of what they do own."

I feel you on that. But let's take into account a couple of things:

1) It can't detrimentally affect anybody who is dead.
2) It doesn't detrimentally affect the heirs, because they're still getting something. Even if they don't, they're not having anything taken from them.
3) All taxes -- not just the estate one -- take a decent bit of what you have. To argue effectively against the estate tax one has to show that it is somehow different or argue against virtually all taxes. One takes work and the other makes you look kind of crazy.

12/3/2009 11:53:52 PM

Quote :

"2) It doesn't detrimentally affect the heirs, because they're still getting something. Even if they don't, they're not having anything taken from them."

Ah, but it does. Think of it as money that they will never see. I know if I had a large net worth and I wanted to leave it all to my kids, I would be outraged that the government thinks they're entitled to a good portion of it.

Quote :

"3) All taxes -- not just the estate one -- take a decent bit of what you have. To argue effectively against the estate tax one has to show that it is somehow different or argue against virtually all taxes. One takes work and the other makes you look kind of crazy."

Then I suppose I'll just have to look kind of crazy. I think the current state of our government with their wasteful spending is completely out of control...we tax everything that moves (and many things that don't). Most of that is wasted on useless crap. I never did like the idea that money is forcefully being taken from person A and given to person B.

I don't have an issue with taxes, in general. They are required for the government to function. But there is a point where they are excessive, and detrimental to the economy -- there's a point where people just don't want to work anymore, because the government takes so much of the money earned. It impedes creativity and innovation.


While the estate tax doesn't affect my family this year due to the $3.5-million cap, or next year due to the 0% tax rate...in 2011 it returns with a $1-million cap and a 55% tax rate. It might certainly affect us then, if anyone passes away that year. Kinda sucks, knowing that a good portion of your family's money might disappear because the government thinks that a welfare mom with 5 kids needs a new big-screen TV, or some other such nonsense.


If the government wants to tax people when they spend money...go for it. But taxing money that is changing hands within a family due to the death of a loved one is just another ploy to take in more money for the federal budget.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 12:38 AM. Reason : ]

12/4/2009 12:35:14 AM

Quote :

"Think of it as money that they will never see."

They will never see the majority of money. I'm unconcerned on this point.

Quote :

"But taxing money that is changing hands within a family due to the death of a loved one is just another ploy to take in more money for the federal budget."

Why is this ploy worse than any other, though?

And no, you aren't kinda crazy. Kinda crazy would be rejecting all taxes out of hand.

12/4/2009 12:40:20 AM

Quote :

"CharlesHF: It isn't just about having a certain amount of money in the bank. It is the net worth of everything that person owns. Story time... ---------------------------------------------- Everyone loves to hate on "the rich", but I will say that this tax doesn't necessarily hit on people's traditional idea of "rich", or at least the "greedy corporate fat-cats" that liberals love to hate."

Yes, everybody is familiar with these scenarios.

Your grandma #1 pretty much sums up my grandparents. Luckily, the bar is being brought back up to 3.5 million, and my grandparents have lived long enough to require enough special medical care that they could never die with 3.5 million in assets unless those thrifty fuckers are hiding something (hopefully, they'd be hiding it from the government too aha).

But anyway, I gotta admit I was secretly sweating the estate tax for a second there. To think the government might have stepped in and taken from me what I rightfully earned by being born to the son of two hard-working, frugal people. I mean, you have no idea what I've done for my inheritance. For example, every year of my entire life, I've gone over to my grandparents' house during the month of December and collected presents from them. Every year! That's fucking commitment, and I'll be Goddamned if I don't get what's rightfully mine. I've earned it!

12/4/2009 3:53:20 AM

GrumpyGOP, your point seems to be that all taxes involve the government taking something that doesn't belong to them, and I agree. It's just that the estate tax seems especially wrong, because you'd actually get taxed less if sold the property the day before you died than if you just suddenly died and were subject to the estate tax. It's the whole "additional tax" for dying that seems absurd.

12/4/2009 8:41:21 AM

quote]your same people don't support a federal education system where everyone gets the same good education[/quote]

DOES NOT COMPUTE. ERROR. MALFUNCTION.

A good education and federal education system are not mutually inclusive. If anything they are exclusive of one another. Each additional
layer of government is exponentially more money not spend on children but bureaucracy.

The quote you are replying to is correct though except unfortuneatly some CHOOSE not to partake in such education program b.c
doing so is "acting white," they have poor parenting, or just are not smart enough to understand the consequences of not
taking advantage of the opportunities given to them.

Quote :

"instead everything is zoned so that rich kids go to schools with the best teachers"

LMAO hahaha you are kidding right!?!?!? do you have any friends that are teachers??!!??!!??
I can guess the answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

If you had any clue you would know that at least within NC the system is actually rigged. Working your way into a lesser
performing school is a one way ticket. Many of the good teachers end up in inner city schools and with current policies often
having trouble getting out for this very reason of keeping good teachers at bad schools. To put salt in the wound your FEDERAL
run NCLB punishes teachers who get stuck or choose to partake in the challenges of working at a "difficult" school.

Quote :

"resources and all the poor kids are put in schools with the other poor, bad kids in their poor, bad neighborhood"

Most of the disparities in resources in schools has to do with the PTA (donations from the parents and local community) or from
being awarded additional monies by the FEDERAL NCLB program since surprise surprise more affluent schools do better on standardized tests.
ZOMG who would have thought!

Quote :

" keeping all the money hurts other people. How can you not see that? "

Technically the money left sitting in the bank vault provides capital so that the bank can provide working class people with
money to finance their house or a new car.

Quote :

"the government that gave the dead the opportunity to earn all the stuff they had is in debt and NEEDS funds to survive or else everything could fall apart."

I dont' believe in completely abolishing the estate tax but you really do not understand how much money is squandered at the national level do you?

CharlesHF

Your grandmas situations is kinda like my grandmother who grew outside of Charlotte with 40 acres that she inherited near Lake
Wiley. She got lucky as Charlotte expanded and this farm land all of a sudden was Green Gold. My grandmother always lived a modest
life, my grandpa before passing was a blue-collar worker at GM, yet her net worth would be in uncle sam's scope if she passed.

12/4/2009 9:17:57 AM

Quote :

"It's just that the estate tax seems especially wrong, because you'd actually get taxed less if sold the property the day before you died than if you just suddenly died and were subject to the estate tax. It's the whole "additional tax" for dying that seems absurd."

You're getting an additional tax because you're transferring wealth again. You're creating income for your children and that income is being taxed. Not fun, for sure, but no less justifiable than income or gift taxes.

Wealth perpetuation goes against the intentions of parenthood tax incentives. Try looking at the estate tax as a recompensation of those incentives.

12/4/2009 9:31:42 AM

This wealth "gain" is already taxed as a capital gains tax.

12/4/2009 9:43:57 AM

You only pay capital gains if you sell the property you inherited, and only if you're selling it above what was paid for them originally. You're being taxed on the increase-in-value of the property.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 10:22 AM. Reason : And only if the deceased didn't pay capital gains]

12/4/2009 10:01:57 AM

Maybe this has been addressed, but I wonder about one thing. On the one hand we are talking about taxing (in the future) a million dollar estate. Then you people are bitching and moaning about trust fund babies. Does anyone here really think that a million dollar estate is anywhere even remotely close to the realm of estates that sustain those oh so hated trust fund babies? One million dollar estates aren't shit these days.

12/4/2009 10:22:53 AM

It's 3.5 million before estate tax, and then you only pay estate on the amount OVER 3.5 million. Thus you'd have to be inheriting upwards of $400 million to be truly taxed 45% of the total inheritance.

And yes, 3.5 million is a lot of money TODAY.

12/4/2009 10:37:08 AM

Quote :

"It's just that the estate tax seems especially wrong, because you'd actually get taxed less if sold the property the day before you died than if you just suddenly died and were subject to the estate tax. It's the whole "additional tax" for dying that seems absurd."

wow, this is not true either.

The estate tax generally comes in less than the capital gains tax or income tax overall, when you consider that the first 3.5 MILLION are exempt. For example, to have to pay just waht the top tax rate would be of 33%, your estate would have to be worth $13.1 MILLION dollars.

12/4/2009 11:24:02 AM

I bet a lot more people would be up in arms about this if there were no "limit" and anything in an estate counted, rather than taxing the amount above some arbitrary number.

But, as with anything else, most people will ignore it until it directly affects them.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 11:46 AM. Reason : ]

12/4/2009 11:45:26 AM

^Wait. All sizes of estates would be eligible? My parents aren't collectors, their houses are falling apart, and they actively plan to die broke. So...what do you mean? Like the government would come in to appraise our family trinkets and force me to pay an estate tax on shit like the Christmas stockings that my mother sewed?

Well, you're right, I'd have a serious problem with that since it would be a massive waste of everybody's time and money.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 12:32 PM. Reason : Plus, I dare somebody to put a price on home-made Christmas stockings!]

12/4/2009 12:30:17 PM

Quote :

"This is not true at all. Land designated for conservation isn’t subject to the estate tax ."

Designating land for conservation comes with its own problems, and this only applies to a max value of $500,000 of land, which may not be much depending on where you are.

Quote :

"Where the wealth does last, it tends to carry with it an undue level of influence. We never would have gotten saddled with a George W. Bush presidency otherwise."

But the estate tax does nothing for this. W was not running on inherited money that would have otherwise been taken away if only we had a larger estate tax.

Quote :

"Either the government does have the right to collect taxes or it doesn't. How does it have more of a right to tax certain transactions than it does others?"

My issue isn't the taxing of one transaction or another, it's the taxing of the transactions as a special scenario and the fact that it often requires further destruction of the investment or inheritance to pay that tax.

Quote :

"again. the econom would not exist without consumption. we want to encourage consumption and tax the "stacking of dough" that doesn't do anyone any good."

Consumption in the modern economy is fueled by credit availability, which is further fueled by savings, and investments. Yes, we can just print up more money, and loan out ever increasing amounts of imaginary money, but recent economic events suggest this may not be a good idea.

Quote :

"working to luxurify the lives of your adult kids is not responsible behavior. far from it. "

How is it not? By working to ensure that my kids and grand kids will have the resources to weather economic and personal financial troubles, I reduce their likelihood of needing or asking for government assistance, which reduces the burdens on government programs and charitable programs thereby ensuring that more resources are available in these programs for those who don't have such resources. Seems responsible to me.

Quote :

"You wouldn't hear Bush or Republicans advocating redistribution of wealth on a massive scale"

TARP



RE: Grandparents who bought land

This is a big problem I have with these sorts of taxes. Yes, we all like to go on and on and pretend like an estate tax will stop Bill Gates' kids from being rich and powerful, and how if only we taxed estates at 100% there would have been no GW Bush but in the end, we all know that the estate tax will hardly hurt these folks, but what it will do is make it that much harder for the next generation to gain wealth and prosperity. The people on the lines are always the ones that get hurt the most. All these types of taxes do is push the bar necessary to break a class barrier higher and higher.


RE: "It's 3.5 MILLION!!!!!!!ONEONEONE!!

Yes, it's 3.5 million now, making it less evil than it could be. But the as the OP mentioned (and was cheering) it's scheduled to come down, and has been much lower in the recent past.

12/4/2009 1:41:47 PM

Quote :

"I can think of about 12 trillion reasons why and no its not HALF."

1. Stop spending so fucking much on other illegitimate government programs.

2. I assure you that I understand basic arithmetic and don't need explanation of a concept that I could understood in the 4th grade. Regardless, even if it's 45% even 40% or whatever altogether, that's close enough to roughly call it "half" for the purposes of this discussion. (not to mention that at a 55% marginal rate, it does indeed become 50% after you inherit enough millions...but whatever, we're splitting hairs).

Quote :

"How is it moral for an heir to inherit 55 million for example they didn't even earn of money that could go to benefit the masses? "

The masses didn't earn any of it, either, and have no right to it just because they're the masses and can exercise tyranny of the majority. Is the heir who did nothing to earn it a lucky bastard? Oh yes, but that's OK. We have no right to prohibit people from giving money/land to their children.

Quote :

"A million is a plenty to be passed down"

1. A million dollars ain't shit.
2. Even if it's a billion, you have no right to decide that and take people's money just because you think they have too much of it.

Quote :

"One second we're bitching about barely being able to afford college, and the next, we're acting like the estate tax is some big threat to us personally and society at large even though it's been in effect since forever with no real problem."

It has nothing to do with what's a threat or what's a benefit or how it affects me or you or whatever else. In practical terms, there are benefits and drawbacks to the estate tax. Frankly, I'm not concerned with any of that--I don't like it because it's not right.

Quote :

"and we all act like we actually have a chance at being ultrasuccessful multimillionaires. "

If you come from a middle-class background or higher and don't have a significant mental deficiency or some other unusual, extenuating circumstance, I contend that you have the means to accumulate a few (or at LEAST a couple) million dollars in wealth, and if you don't, you have nobody to blame and no room to complain. It requires a tiny bit of knowledge (that we, for some inexplicable reason, don't teach in school, but that can be easily learned via doing a little reading), but that isn't what holds most people back. It's mostly just a matter of self-discipline.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 1:50 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 1:51 PM. Reason : I'm ok with treating inheritance like any other income, of course. Not saying it shouldn't be taxed]

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 1:57 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2009 1:48:16 PM

This is why I'm glad my grandparents have been distributing their wealth amongst their childen and grandchildren incrementally every year for the last 15 + years.

12/4/2009 3:33:36 PM

Quote :

"How is it moral for an heir to inherit 55 million for example they didn't even earn of money that could go to benefit the masses?"

I don't know who said this in this thread but I believe you are confused or you are posting from another country. I'm hoping the second.

There is a lot of "I'm not rich, never will be rich, therefore no one else should be rich" whining and bitching in this thread

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2009 3:51:49 PM

^^Yeah, that's typical of everybody. Less affluent people gift to their kids each year until they're poor enough to qualify for Medicare and Medicaid. Then they live off the money they gifted to their kids.

Quote :

"theDuke866: It has nothing to do with what's a threat or what's a benefit or how it affects me or you or whatever else. In practical terms, there are benefits and drawbacks to the estate tax. Frankly, I'm not concerned with any of that--I don't like it because it's not right."

I think it is right!

And I understand y'all's argument about how it doesn't matter if it affects them or not. I continue to push that rhetoric to point out how absurd it is that some people oppose the estate tax because they foolishly believe that they might someday be affected by it. It's like the fools on Medicare who oppose the public option because they don't approve of government-subsidized healthcare. Or a lower-class person who doesn't own a computer but opposes a temporary penny tax increase to install computers in their local library.

Quote :

"theDuke866: If you come from a middle-class background or higher and don't have a significant mental deficiency or some other unusual, extenuating circumstance, I contend that you have the means to accumulate a few (or at LEAST a couple) million dollars in wealth, and if you don't, you have nobody to blame and no room to complain. It requires a tiny bit of knowledge (that we, for some inexplicable reason, don't teach in school, but that can be easily learned via doing a little reading), but that isn't what holds most people back. It's mostly just a matter of self-discipline."

I'm opting out. I'm not interested in money management. I mean, I'll keep a savings account, and I'll chuck what I can into my IRA or whatever it is I lost money in last year. But that's it.

I'm not gonna spend my free time flipping houses or keeping one eye on the stock ticker. I don't care that much, and I don't think I should have to care that much in order to lead a long, healthy, happy life.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 4:13 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2009 4:01:13 PM

^you also shouldn't care and have no right to someone else's money who has done all that and accumulated a mass wealth that he then passes down to his children or whatever person/charity of his choosing. He paid his debt to society in terms of income taxes, etc...thats all you/government get, end of story.

12/4/2009 4:03:54 PM

Guys, no need in arguing with them anymore. You cant change an apple to an orange. Its an ideological philosophy. While its easy to see their philosophy as punative and communistic, it still is a matter of opinion, and thankfully most of inherited wealth is still not taxed. Lets hope it stays that way.

12/4/2009 4:06:16 PM