PDA

View Full Version : Estate Tax



LegalSmash
04-09-2008, 09:22 AM
This may be a little too technical a thread, but I felt it could be interesting.

The estate tax is up for repeal in 2010 under current law. There are many positive and negative views of the estate tax, which currently only affects persons with estates in excess of 2 Million as of 2008, although previously, it has been much lower, over the years affecting more individuals.

About 1% of the population in the US control roughly 40% of the wealth in this country.

The tax takes a maximum of about 45% of the aggregate(total) estate of the decedent (dead guy).

What are the good and bad things you see for this estate tax? Should the hyper rich be able to technically create defacto dynasties? Is it good for dynasties to exist and essentially create bottlenecks of wealth within the economy?

Also, do you believe that the Congress, R or D, would allow the estate tax to lapse, considering the amount of revenue it brings in, and the small cross-section of the population it affects, and our current financial situations and "war obligations"?

Discuss.

Italian Jew
04-09-2008, 10:18 AM
Well, I do not think it is right for someone to inherit all of the wealth of a deceased family member if they are incredibly wealthy. You would not want some tard of a son to inherit the family wealth and squander it.

Also, it is not like the dead person is going to miss their money if they are dead. If their family is bitching about it, they obviously care more about the money than their deceased "loved one".

The republicans will probably try to repeal it while the Dems will fight to keep it. Whoever is in control of Congress will ultimately decide this because this is typically a Democratic law that Republicans would hate because they believe in more economic privacy, less taxes, and less gov't intervention from what I understand. I do not think they will jump ship to pay for the war with that because they really haven't done anything to raise a lot of money for it now, why would they later?

zero
04-09-2008, 12:12 PM
As someone who values freedom, what happens to someones estate after they die (regardless if they have ten dollars or ten million dollars) should remain between the deceased (through a will) and the recipients of that estate as listed in the will. Unless stated in the will, government should not have any right to any of that property regardless if its .01% or 50%.

Itch
04-09-2008, 12:19 PM
As someone who values freedom, what happens to someones estate after they die (regardless if they have ten dollars or ten million dollars) should remain between the deceased (through a will) and the recipients of that estate as listed in the will. Unless stated in the will, government should not have any right to any of that property regardless if its .01% or 50%.

I agree with Zero on this. The person who earned the money in the first place was already taxed on it. Should it be taxed every time money changes hands?.. Should my 6 year old be taxed on his allowance?

Red
04-09-2008, 12:21 PM
As someone who values freedom, what happens to someones estate after they die (regardless if they have ten dollars or ten million dollars) should remain between the deceased (through a will) and the recipients of that estate as listed in the will. Unless stated in the will, government should not have any right to any of that property regardless if its .01% or 50%.

:thumbup:

zero
04-09-2008, 12:30 PM
Just to add to the conversation. If the government can take a certain percentage of your estate after your die, against your will, isn't that saying that the government owns a portion of your property? Lets say that you want 100% of it to go to your children, nonprofit organizations, or whatever. However, the government will step in and want their share of 40% or whatever the value might be. To me, this means that the government has a certain ownership of your property regardless on what you think.

Thats a step towards Communism, according to the first and third plank of the Communist Manefesto by Karl Marx.

http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

Italian Jew
04-09-2008, 01:27 PM
Well the government does have the power of eminent domain...so they can take your property once they pay you for it and you don't have the right to say no.

The deal is that if you have a will and a percentage goes towards non-profits or something like that, the gov't cannot touch it. All it can tax is the stuff that goes towards private items. Personally if there is no will, then the Gov't should be able to tax because the deceased probably did not think his/her heirs were worthy of the property.

But honestly, if you have millions of dollars, are you really going to miss out on a percentage of the property? This prevents the rich from getting too rich by creating dynasties.


And the selfish will always claim communism is evil and bad. LOL, that site is a joke. people get to preoccupied with their own interests to actually know about the issues going on in the world. A little communism doesn't hurt...too much of it does, just as too much democracy, capitalism, freedom, etc. does.

Slavic
04-09-2008, 02:21 PM
That money was already tax, what is going to happen when it gets passed down to the heir? It is going to be spend, and thus taxed again. No matter what happens the money is most likely to fluctuate through the economy, although it may not be the US economy.

Personally, I would not leave my money to an heir, I'd rather it be spread out in the local government as opposed to the central. I am against dynastic systems, whether they be plutocratic or feudal, but its not up to me to limit the rights of others even though I am against them. Therefore the government should not.

zero
04-09-2008, 02:27 PM
But honestly, if you have millions of dollars, are you really going to miss out on a percentage of the property? This prevents the rich from getting too rich by creating dynasties.


We don't want dynasties to get too powerful, yet, we just shift that power directly the the federal government instead thinking that they would be more legitimate and infalible when it comes to power. Its still we, the people right? Its more like "we, the interest and lobby groups." What’s the difference between the federal government and the mafia? One of them is organized.

I'd also argue that its the government that help create monopolies and dynasties.



And the selfish will always claim communism is evil and bad. LOL, that site is a joke. people get to preoccupied with their own interests to actually know about the issues going on in the world. A little communism doesn't hurt...too much of it does, just as too much democracy, capitalism, freedom, etc. does.

I'm not saying Communism is bad. However, if you believe in that type of socioecomomics, then I suggest supporting the Communist Party of America, or better yet, move to the dozens of other countries that practice Communism. Don't adopt socialism under the guise of liberalism.

PotshotPolka
04-09-2008, 03:35 PM
I wish I could be politically conservative and still hate rich Republicans. :sad:

LegalSmash
04-09-2008, 03:44 PM
Lol.

okay, the reason why the US can pull estate taxes is because the transfer of wealth from person A to person B is what is called an "income realization event" every time one of those happens, whether it be through trust payouts, terminations, inheritance, etc the govt reserves the right to tax at a certain percent.

The estate tax is a flat tax that kicks in only if you have a total estate over roughly 2 million.

Its what the congress likes to call a "wealth redistribution mechanism" which allegedly puts the money to public works.

It affects more and more people these days not because they have 2M in prop or more, but because they have life ins policies which have payouts that kick them OVER the 2 M mark. Now... .10 M @ 45% you still have 5.5 M of Estate Tax free $ that is divisable, inheritable and conveyable, if you only have 2.0 M after the life policy is cashed in, 1 M of the money from the estate gets ganked. This can put a severe strain on a family that loses a member early.... for example, soldiers that die in combat zones that had insurance policies that put thier estate over 2M.

Soldier's family essentially gets smacked, and hard, for nearly half the estate.

PotshotPolka
04-09-2008, 03:54 PM
So why doesn't congress just go back to increasing luxury taxes, and cut off extra taxes on "living necessities" even if they have 50 rooms and 20000 sq. ft.

I fully support 70% + taxes on top 1% of the upper class.

Italian Jew
04-09-2008, 04:13 PM
Well, so many soldiers are wealthy nowadays... :bored: Don't know of many insurance policies that would put a family over the 2.0 M mark when they are fighting over seas right now.

I am not saying I want to move to a communist country, just that some socialist ideas would work well in our government. Does that mean we are socialists? No. It means we realize what we need to do preserve America rather than be stubborn morons who go down with the ship.

Its the top 1% of the population that doesn't want the taxes...and they so happen to "contribute" to the politicians or are the politicians.

Smallsasaurus
04-09-2008, 06:16 PM
My whole thought on this is the government does a terrible job effectively utilizing my money, why the hell should I give it to them. Okay, these aren't statistics I've looked up recently, but I've heard them several times before and they are semi-accurate. For every dollar you give to the government that is supposed to be used for social good, 5-10 cents reach the people its intended too. That's just plain awful. Even just okay charities are able to distribute over 50% of what they collect to the intended people. Just as an example I believe about 85% of everything "Catholic Charitiy" collects reaches its intended targets.

So what I say is cut back taxes, let me keep my money, invest it, earn a decent return over the next 40-50 years (which the government sure as hell can't do) and then I'll give the money to a charity I believe in and that will use the money effectively. If the government mandated an "Estate Charity Contribution" instead of a "Estate Tax" and I got to pick the charity, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Italian Jew
04-09-2008, 09:21 PM
Should be a check box on your will where your collected taxes go... lol

phatman76
04-09-2008, 09:56 PM
Papa Reagan taught me that all taxes are bad. Period. Why? restriction of freedoms and liberty. I say we need flat taxes, poll taxes, and sales taxes, thats basically it. None if this IRS and income bullshit...

Italian Jew
04-09-2008, 11:29 PM
Poll taxes as in you need to pay a tax to vote? If that's the case we will see even less people vote in elections because some cannot afford to pay to vote while others will choose not to.

As for the flat tax, as long as it is at a percentage that benefits the people and does not further the government's deficit much further, it would help out the economy. Just need the right numbers is all because the poor pay a higher proportion of their money into taxes than the rich do, so we can't have the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer. It would be best if the rich would pay a better proportion of the taxes that they ought to owe, but for all fairness to them, they don't have to pay to a level where they pay more of a proportion than the poor.

Other taxes would need to stay on Corporations that would regulate them from doing too much outsourcing and what not.

phatman76
04-10-2008, 12:02 AM
Poll taxes as in you need to pay a tax to vote? If that's the case we will see even less people vote in elections because some cannot afford to pay to vote while others will choose not to.

As for the flat tax, as long as it is at a percentage that benefits the people and does not further the government's deficit much further, it would help out the economy. Just need the right numbers is all because the poor pay a higher proportion of their money into taxes than the rich do, so we can't have the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer. It would be best if the rich would pay a better proportion of the taxes that they ought to owe, but for all fairness to them, they don't have to pay to a level where they pay more of a proportion than the poor.

Other taxes would need to stay on Corporations that would regulate them from doing too much outsourcing and what not.

didn't mean poll tax, stupidity because i was tired.

taxing the rich a lot is bad because it hurts wealthy investors. Taxing corporations a lot is bad because they just leave....

Italian Jew
04-10-2008, 12:24 AM
I am saying taxes that prevent industries from relying on outside labor so a vast percentage of americans cannot find a job because some Asian guy works for 10% of the original wage. they only get the tax if they outsource too much.

lol, I was sure you did not mean poll tax, but had to check. Nobody likes them thar poll taxes!

zero
04-10-2008, 10:22 AM
My whole thought on this is the government does a terrible job effectively utilizing my money, why the hell should I give it to them. Okay, these aren't statistics I've looked up recently, but I've heard them several times before and they are semi-accurate. For every dollar you give to the government that is supposed to be used for social good, 5-10 cents reach the people its intended too. That's just plain awful. Even just okay charities are able to distribute over 50% of what they collect to the intended people. Just as an example I believe about 85% of everything "Catholic Charitiy" collects reaches its intended targets.


This is precisely my problem with government and many of their social programs. The inefficiency is astounding, and I'm forced to fund it. I actually read an article in regards to charity and the numbers pretty much mirror what you said. If there were a non-profit organization out there that helped the needy, and only 10% of your donated cash actually went to those who needed it, would you donate to them? I know I wouldn't. That organization wouldn't last long either.



So what I say is cut back taxes, let me keep my money, invest it, earn a decent return over the next 40-50 years (which the government sure as hell can't do) and then I'll give the money to a charity I believe in and that will use the money effectively. If the government mandated an "Estate Charity Contribution" instead of a "Estate Tax" and I got to pick the charity, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, we will never see a reduction in government, and hence, we'll never see a cut back in taxes. There's been a steady growth since about 1940 regardless of who's in charge -- republicans or democrats and my predication is that its only going to get worse. For those who like a large inefficienct government dictating your life, maybe this is a good thing.

Italian Jew
04-10-2008, 10:29 AM
Let's get a large efficient government! Who wants to be the emperor? If we find a good one, I have no problems with that if he gets the job done. A little too big right now with the Democratic Republic...we need to shrink or fix up ze government.

zero
04-10-2008, 10:58 AM
Let's get a large efficient government!

No such thing. :)

BTW Italian Jew, I thought you were an admin?

Italian Jew
04-10-2008, 11:02 AM
I can dream can't I?

I stopped paying for it...the peeps loved me and they miss the ol' Italian Jew cleaning up the mess. :rlol: