The Bush tax cut that eliminated the estate tax is about to expire. It used to be 45% after the first 3.5 million of an heir-bound estate but when it comes back it will be 55% after the first 1 million. I think this is great because it will help with our problems but theres obviously heavy opposition from the right.

Some say it deincentivises saving and investment which is what creates jobs and they complain about how two people that make the same the person who saves the most in their life will be taxed the most....well thats a great thing imo because spending and consumption helps boost the economy mor ethan savings.

If there were only investment and savings and no spending there would be no economy but anytime theres demand in a capitalism theres an economy.

People just don't like this because it puts a hamper on "old money" and capitalist royal families.

12/2/2009 7:13:29 PM

you do realize that the estate tax comes back in 2011, even if Congress does nothing, right? And, you do realize that that is exactly what the Bush tax cut calls for, right?

12/2/2009 7:16:42 PM

you do realize thats all detailed in op, right?

12/2/2009 7:18:17 PM

wouldn't exactly be unprecedented (or unexpected) for the sunset of this tax cut to continue to be pushed back. see the alternative minimum tax.

Quote :

"If there were only investment and savings and no spending there would be no economy but anytime theres demand in a capitalism theres an economy."

this is kind of a ridiculous statement. it's not like money that is invested isn't spending by the company that is being invested in.

[Edited on December 2, 2009 at 7:20 PM. Reason : .]

12/2/2009 7:18:38 PM

I think it's fucked up. That money's already been taxed enough...no need to take HALF of what's left at the very end.

12/2/2009 7:43:54 PM

How about the questionable morality of confiscating nearly half of a person's wealth for no other reason than the fact that they died?

Quote :

"well thats a great thing imo because spending and consumption helps boost the economy mor ethan savings. "

Seriously? Cheap money and excessive spending may give the temporary impression of economic prosperity but they cannot, in and of themselves, add value to an economy.

12/2/2009 7:45:40 PM

Quote :

"That money's already been taxed enough...no need to take HALF of what's left at the very end."

Not to mention taxing the gains as it's saved and invested for the rest of the heir's life.

12/2/2009 7:57:19 PM

Quote :

"this is kind of a ridiculous statement. it's not like money that is invested isn't spending by the company that is being invested in. "

I should have been more specific. Most of this "investments" are land. Land just sitting there belonging to a single private owner doesn't benefit society in any way.

Quote :

"no need to take HALF of what's left at the very end. How about the questionable morality of confiscating nearly half of a person's wealth for no other reason than the fact that they died? "

No need? I can think of about 12 trillion reasons why and no its not HALF. Its half after the first million. A million is a plenty to be passed down. 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? as opposed to only inheriting 28 million and the rest going to the tax?

12/2/2009 7:57:55 PM

Quote :

" Cheap money and excessive spending may give the temporary impression of economic prosperity but they cannot, in and of themselves, add value to an economy. "

Neither can hoarding your money up.

Quote :

"I think it's fucked up. That money's already been taxed enough...no need to take HALF of what's left at the very end"

It only comes up to half if the value is around $2.8 million, which is maybe 1 million households, or around .3% of America. That’s assuming the person isn’t clever enough to properly transfer their wealth via trusts or some other mechanism the rich often use to skirt the estate tax.

12/2/2009 7:59:58 PM

Quote :

"Land just sitting there belonging to a single private owner doesn't benefit society in any way."

Property taxes.

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? as opposed to only inheriting 28 million and the rest going to the tax?"

Money spent paying taxes isn't necessarily benefitting the masses. This sounds like vestigial progressive era archetypes about the lazy children of factory owners.

12/2/2009 8:05:24 PM

Quote :

"Land just sitting there belonging to a single private owner doesn't benefit society in any way."

remind me why that matters? Society's wishes shouldn't trump property rights

12/2/2009 8:07:37 PM

You are a fucking retard OP.

Yes, the estate tax will surely bring wealth to this country.

Taxes always generate wealth you liberal pantyeating scum.

This will only cause more CAPITAL OUTFLOWS which FURTHER IMPOVERISHES THE MINORITIES YOU CLAIM TO LOVE.

Stop being so fucking dense. Yes, punishing saving and encouraging wasteful spending will surely create wealth.

Perhaps, savers and accumulators of capital who employ you and the rest of you vermin are the ones who create wealth. What happens if they take their ball and go home? You are left on the street hustling like a fucking nignog.

12/2/2009 8:13:29 PM

I love the estate tax!

The only thing that bothers me about it is the fact that people can get around it.

100 percent estate tax for everybody! If you don't want the government to get your money, you should leave it to charity.

12/2/2009 8:17:35 PM

it's like a whole buncha crazy being spouted by Bridget

12/2/2009 8:19:01 PM

The same people who champion the abolition of the estate tax are the ones who tell everyone to pull themselves up by their boot straps, that they shouldn't live off of hand-outs. Hilarity in hypocrisy!

12/2/2009 8:22:12 PM

no, not really. It's one thing to have someone choose what to do with their own money and give it to an "undeserving." it's entirely another to steal from someone and give their money to an undeserving. that you don't see the difference is hilarious. Then again, no one is advocating that the only way to make it in the world is to get an inheritance, nor is anyone advocating that everyone should be given an inheritance.

[Edited on December 2, 2009 at 8:27 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2009 8:23:48 PM

BridgetSPK is the most pathetic poster I have ever seen.

Without fail everytime I read something that I think must be someone trolling with extreme liberalism it ends up being her.

Yes, we should all just donate to charity and play with pink fairies WHEE!!!!!!!!!

We should all eat cupcakes and makeout with magazine photos of Jared Leto?!!??!


She's one of those simpletons that would be great to fuck if she were skinny and her friends were hot but since she eats McDonalds everyday with the rest of the poor simpletons you just hope you don't run her over when you have to skid through the drive thru because you have to work for a living and don't have time to eat real food

12/2/2009 8:34:45 PM

I agree in a sense about the concept of choice, but as was previously stated, someone can simply donate their money to a charity or trust to avoid the tax while at the same time not depriving their descendants the privilege of pulling themselves up by their boot straps.

12/2/2009 8:34:57 PM

Quote :

"Its half after the first million. A million is a plenty to be passed down. 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?"

This is fucking crazy. My grandparents, who worked and saved their entire lives to provide for their children, shouldn't be able to do so? How the hell is it possibly immoral for someone to make money and save it for their children and grandchildren? You're going to say that a million is enough to be passed down. What gives anyone the right to make that determination for anyone else? Do you want to start saying anything over $200k a year is too much and they should take all of that too? You are absolutely ludicrous.

12/2/2009 8:35:51 PM

and who has ever said that every one should have to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps?" You are building a man of straw here, dude.

12/2/2009 8:36:25 PM

I would hate for capital and resources to be put to productive use to employ people who possess viable skills.

I have an idea let's steal the money and give it to a drug addict to buy opium.

Rather than create jobs for opportunistic Hispanics let's just lay everyone off and go back to eating berries, yeast, and squirrels!

12/2/2009 8:38:31 PM

^^^ nothing that you fear is remotely close to what is happening, or what has happened (except for perhaps between the 1930s and 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was 90%).

^ i would love for that too, but how does an estate tax impugn that? It doesn’t, is the answer.

[Edited on December 2, 2009 at 8:45 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2009 8:44:55 PM

One of these days I'm going to get rich after I invent something that allows you to reach through the internet and punch someone.

Then I'll leave all the money I make to my kids, and hope the government doesn't decide it 'deserves' half.

Quote :

"^^^ nothing that you fear is remotely close to what is happening, or what has happened (except for perhaps between the 1930s and 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was 90%)."

...how would you know if it does or doesn't affect someone?

[Edited on December 2, 2009 at 8:48 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2009 8:46:36 PM

hmmm. causing people to have to sell off fully functional businesses to be chopped up in order to pay an immoral tax? I can't see how that would cause a loss of jobs or affect the economy at all...

12/2/2009 8:47:36 PM

Quote :

"and who has ever said that every one should have to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps?""

So would you be in favor of a privileged few who don't actually have to build themselves from the ground up?

12/2/2009 8:50:27 PM

i'd be in favour of letting people give their money to whoever the fuck they want. you do realize that the point of the estate tax is to allow the "privileged few" to stay the "privileged few," right?

12/2/2009 8:52:27 PM

THIS IS A STICK-UP!

GIVE ME ALL YOUR MONEY!


Seriously, this is not an issue worth arguing. One side is like, "Well, it only affects a very small percentage of people, and we've had the estate tax in place for a long time, and people are still working hard, innovating, and saving...so...what's the problem?" And the other side is like, "OMG, IT'S IMMORAL. MY GRANDPARENTS WORKED HARD SO THEY COULD BLAH, BLAH, BLAH..." All of the sudden, people's crazy rich grandparents are popping up all over the place, and we all act like we actually have a chance at being ultrasuccessful multimillionaires.

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.

12/2/2009 8:53:28 PM

and how would you say there's "no real problem?" We know that farms have had to be chopped up and sold off in order to pay the tax. I'd say that's a "real problem." If an injustice happens to even one person, it's still an injustice.

12/2/2009 8:55:03 PM

Quote :

""^^^ nothing that you fear is remotely close to what is happening, or what has happened (except for perhaps between the 1930s and 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was 90%)." ...how would you know if it does or doesn't affect someone? "

huh?

the estate isn’t stopping Gzusfrk’s grandparents from “providing for their children” as she idiotically is crying about. There is no chance that we’ll say that making $200,000 is “too much” and this concern doesn’t have anything to do with the estate tax anyway.

Quote :

"If an injustice happens to even one person, it's still an injustice."

haha, do you stand by this same reasoning when it comes to the death penalty?

[Edited on December 2, 2009 at 8:57 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2009 8:56:24 PM

Bridget, just because it might not affect you doesn't mean it doesn't affect other people.

I love that ideology: "What is right for me is right for everyone!"

12/2/2009 8:57:07 PM

^^Glad to know you're fully aware of my grandparent's situation. Please enlighten me.

And I wasn't the one to say the estate tax was immoral. I was quoting someone who said that leaving that much to your heirs was immoral.

And great job on missing the analogy between taxing salaries and the estate tax.

[Edited on December 2, 2009 at 8:59 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on December 2, 2009 at 9:09 PM. Reason : whatever]

12/2/2009 8:57:52 PM

Quote :

"the estate isn’t stopping Gzusfrk’s grandparents from “providing for their children” as she idiotically is crying about. There is no chance that we’ll say that making $200,000 is “too much” and this concern doesn’t have anything to do with the estate tax anyway."

people already say that, dude. all it takes is enough people to vote this way, and it will be the law of the land. don't be that obtuse.

12/2/2009 8:58:11 PM

Quote :

"Bridget, just because it might not affect you doesn't mean it doesn't affect other people."

i thought this was the rich/conservative ethos.

12/2/2009 8:58:22 PM

Quote :

" the estate isn’t stopping Gzusfrk’s grandparents from “providing for their children” as she idiotically is crying about. There is no chance that we’ll say that making $200,000 is “too much” and this concern doesn’t have anything to do with the estate tax anyway."

Do you have any idea how much her grandparents might or might not have? It could hugely affect her.....or it might not affect her at all, and she's saying that the government taking away someone's money/land just because they died is an injustice, no matter who it is.

If you don't know someone's personal situation, shut the fuck up.

12/2/2009 9:00:34 PM

^ it’s irrelevant, because the situation she is describing can’t ever exist, regardless of how much her grandparents make, under current and future laws.

12/2/2009 9:03:12 PM

^What do you even mean? What situation have I described? I merely commented on how it was ludicrous to say that $1mil is more than enough to leave behind and that it was immoral to leave more than that...

12/2/2009 9:04:57 PM

^ the estate law will never and can never stop your grandparents for providing for their children.

This is a good way to try and scare and mislead people, and it’s the tactic opponents of estate taxes like to use, but it has absolutely no basis in reality.

12/2/2009 9:06:40 PM

Is it not taking money from the heirs if it is taxed at a higher rate?

12/2/2009 9:08:31 PM

Quote :

"I was quoting someone who said that leaving that much to your heirs was immortal."

damn sure is enough money to live off of for someone who is IMMORTAL

Quote :

"hmmm. causing people to have to sell off fully functional businesses to be chopped up in order to pay an immoral tax? I can't see how that would cause a loss of jobs or affect the economy at all..."

Without consumers, the businesses would fail anyway. plus, these people are going to pay their employees as little amount as possible. If the demand is still there and they take their hat and go home, someone else will just hire them.

Quote :

"Do you want to start saying anything over $200k a year is too much and they should take all of that too? You are absolutely ludicrous."

Nobody has ever mentioned taking ALL of anything but yes, they should take about half of everything after 200k as well. They pretty much already do/plan on it.

Quote :

"nor is anyone advocating that everyone should be given an inheritance."

you are, however advocating the generation and prolongation of old money. You want money to go into one family and continue to grow and grow forever until a few families own everything. Remember those days?

Quote :

"Taxes always generate wealth you liberal pantyeating scum. "

who said taxes generate wealth?

Quote :

"Stop being so fucking dense. Yes, punishing saving and encouraging wasteful spending will surely create wealth."

nobody said anything about creating wealth. I'm talking about benefiting society and increasing quality of life. The first million they get to keep plus the other 50% will surely put feed on the table for many generations to come.

Quote :

"What happens if they take their ball and go home? You are left on the street hustling like a fucking nignog. "

nope. someone less greedy steps in which is better for society anyway.

12/2/2009 9:08:55 PM

Quote :

"Without consumers, the businesses would fail anyway."

So, without the estate tax, there would be no consumers? whaaaa?

Quote :

"plus, these people are going to pay their employees as little amount as possible."

wow. just wow.

Quote :

"you are, however advocating the generation and prolongation of old money."

you need to learn about the estate tax. it is entirely intended to prolong old money and prevent the rise of new money.

12/2/2009 9:11:35 PM

Quote :

"Is it not taking money from the heirs if it is taxed at a higher rate? "

Do you mean taxed at any rate?

And is taking money from the heirs the same as not being provided for?

Because what you are implying is that if someone inherits less than $3.5 million (or $1 million in a couple of years) from their grandparents, then their grandparents didn’t provide for them.

Quote :

"you need to learn about the estate tax. it is entirely intended to prolong old money and prevent the rise of new money. "

haha, what? you have it backwards.

[Edited on December 2, 2009 at 9:13 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2009 9:12:15 PM

Quote :

"well thats a great thing imo because spending and consumption helps boost the economy mor ethan savings."

rofl. This thread is just one big facepalm for me. I'm sure if liberals had their way, we'd have a 100% estate tax. Hell, I'm sure if liberals really had their way, we'd just have a 100% tax on everyone, and the all-knowing economic central planner could distribute the money properly.

12/2/2009 9:14:51 PM

Again--I don't get where you think someone else should be able to make the determination on what it means to provide for someone? And that $1mil is going to go a long way once it's split up amongst the siblings.

If my grandparents want to leave their 7 children the money that they have earned and ALREADY paid taxes on, they should be able to do that, without worrying about having to split it up for years before their death, or else lose it to the government.

12/2/2009 9:16:38 PM

Quote :

"moron: haha, what? you have it backwards."

aaronburro believes the only thing preventing him from reaching Rockefeller status is the fact that he might not get to hang on to his grandparents' defunct "farm" that he never visits.

See, the owning class' exploitation of our labor for the lowest price possible is not what's holding us down. It's the US government and all its pesky taxes and services that it provides.

[Edited on December 2, 2009 at 9:18 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2009 9:17:58 PM

Quote :

"haha, what? you have it backwards."

false, dude. The entire point of the tax is to prevent people from acquiring wealth that could rival that of old money people. How, you say? Because the newly wealthy are not as adept at hiding their wealth from the government and avoiding the tax. And people who aren't mega-rich aren't as able to afford the fancy lawyers to help them hide the money, either. It was entirely a scheme by the super wealthy to keep other people down. And you are dumb enough to believe otherwise. If it really was to help get rid of the Morgans and the Rockefellers and the Kennedys, then explain why it hasn't...

Bridget, you are so full of stupid it's not even funny. The estate tax has hit more than just "defunct farms." Come out of your liberal fantasy land and join the real world.

12/2/2009 9:18:32 PM

There's no such thing as property ownership. We're all just renting from the government.

12/2/2009 9:46:12 PM

This is my favorite tax.

The thought of it coming back makes be want to use one of these:

12/2/2009 10:16:39 PM

Quote :

"So, without the estate tax, there would be no consumers? whaaaa?"

no with complete savings there would be no consumers.

Quote :

"Again--I don't get where you think someone else should be able to make the determination on what it means to provide for someone? And that $1mil is going to go a long way once it's split up amongst the siblings. "

Why not? Its not that hard to figure out how much money is needed/cost of living. Most people make1 million in their lifetimes so that would be more than enough to "provide for them"

Why do you keep saying 1 million is going to be split up? in no case would they only keep one million. 50% of everything AFTER the first million is all thats being taken. If the estate is 101million then the take home is 51 million. if its 2 million the take home is 1.5 million.

1million split 7 ways is 143,000 anyway. Thats PLENTY to start a business, invest or even for somebody who doesn't have work to pay for college. Overkill.

Quote :

"If my grandparents want to leave their 7 children the money that they have earned and ALREADY paid taxes on, they should be able to do that, without worrying about having to split it up for years before their death, or else lose it to the government. "

they payed taxes to GET the money. their heirs have to pay taxes to GET money. the grandparents aren't paying taxes again, the parents are paying taxes for the first time.

12/3/2009 11:04:24 AM

Quote :

"It was entirely a scheme by the super wealthy to keep other people down. And you are dumb enough to believe otherwise. If it really was to help get rid of the Morgans and the Rockefellers and the Kennedys, then explain why it hasn't... "

The estate tax was not designed to "get rid" of anyone. It's dumb class-warfare buzzwords like that one that makes you, and people like you, come off as kooks, at best.

It's primarily a revenue generating mechanism that has a designed side effect to encourage investment over runaway growth of wealthy oligarchy, that has a very minimal negative side effect on the people that it kicks in for.

Not to mention, if the gov. ever gets serious about paying down the debt, it'd be hard to do with a repealed estate tax:

Quote :

"Making permanent the repeal of the estate tax after 2010 — repeatedly proposed by President Bush— would add almost $1.3 trillion to the deficit between fiscal years 2012 and 2021, the first ten years in which the full costs of extending repeal would be reflected in the budget. This cost includes $1 trillion of lost revenues and $277 billion of higher interest payments on the national debt. Each year of repeal would cost slightly more, in today’s terms, than everything the federal government now spends on homeland security, and considerably more than it now spends on education."

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=455

I don't see how any conservative who's serious about reducing gov., encouraging business investment, and keeping hardworking Americans' income taxes low can be against the estate tax.

It's almost like the poor, unfortunate multimillionaires have some type of hypnotic hold on the right.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 11:15 AM. Reason : ]

12/3/2009 11:14:44 AM

with a consumption tax, the estate tax would be a non-issue

the heirs would simply be taxed on what was spent

12/3/2009 11:20:30 AM