Looks like someone finally out-assholed Brian Darling, the guy who wrote the memo saying Terri Schiavo was “a great political issue.”
Nor the converse, I trust?
When come back, bring argument.
Only if you have another, better way to pay it. Not to mention that $18,000,000,000.00 is “insignificant” only with a most unorthodox definition of the word.
Huh? The government has no right to tax it before it gets transferred, but it’s fine if they tax it the moment after? Is that really what you mean?
Cite away.
Pretty much.
I’m not trying to deny this revenue from the federal gov’t. Hence my proposition to tax estates as income to the heirs. This is, to me, a far more palatable method. It stops the gov’t from essentially robbing a corpse and causes the heirs, who presumably are in a position to better reap the social benefits of federal largesse than the dead guy, to bear the burden more directly. It also allows different heirs, who might have a greater need for the assets to inherit them without the gov’t taking their 41 to 50 percent off the top. That is, the estate could be split up in such a fashion that the heirs most able to bear the tax burden would pay the of the taxes levied, while an heir in a more difficult financial situation would escape with a smaller, or no, tax.
It also has the effect of defusing the argument over estate taxes by shifting the burden to a more popularly acceptable source, eliminates the many dodges the wealthy use to avoid paying any estate tax, and defuses the class war inherent in the argument.
Can you elaborate on this a bit? I honestly have no idea where you are getting this all from. Changing the estate tax to an income tax would mean a different rate. That’s it. My inheritance of $5,000,000 would be taxed at my income tax rate (about 33%) instead of the former estate tax rate (currently 48%). Besides this, I don’t see any difference at all except for meaningless semantics. The burden for the tax hasn’t shifted it’s source whatsoever.
Try this one: With the estate tax repeal proposed by the Bush administration, we might be facing the future that Teddy Roosevelt feared-where huge fortunes amassed and untaxed would evolve into a dangerous and permanent aristocracy. Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes by Gates & Collins. This is otherwise known as the anti-Paris Hilton argument. One could argue that rather than being repealed, the estate tax hasn’t accomplished its worthy goal and therefore should be strengthened.
As for the proposal that the estate tax should be replaced by making estate distributions part of taxable income and taxing them on individuals’ Form 1040s I must say that that is a very interesting idea.
So, the estate tax isn’t about revenue generation at all. It’s about the government socially experimenting with the population and attempting to mold and shape society for the bennefit of all. Truly frightening.
If you’re Paris Hilton.
Sooooo, Debaser, how YOU doin’?
I think structuring it in the manner I suggest would provide more flexibility to both the deceased and the heirs. Distributions (and thus taxes) can be groomed to fit the heirs financial situations more easily. Say there’s three heirs, one of whom is heading towards bankruptcy due to a failing business. The proceeds of the estate can be distributed so the two heirs better able to bear the tax burden pay the bulk of the taxes and the guy trying to save his business has more capital with which to do so.
You can set up your will that way *now * if you want to. There’s a certain total amount of money available for the government to tax either way, and it hardly matters to the IRS whose name is on the check. As debaser points out, the only difference is the rate. So what?
But then there’s this:
Are you referring to the long-standing existing estate tax, or to the radical notion of eliminating it? There’s an effect on society if you do what the GOP talking points say to do, too.
BTW, it isn’t and never was about a social experiment either, it’s about generating revenue, and in a relatively painless way: the former owner can’t use it anymore (“robbing a corpse” indeed!), and the new owner doesn’t have it yet anyway.
Unless I’ve mis-read the thread, it was you who made the comment about improving the characters of the inheritors. I’ll thank the government for staying out fo the character-building business, thanks just the same.
I don’t know how you find this “frightening.” The government does this all the time with tax policies, such as by making it more or less advisable financially to be married. Also, the mortgage tax deduction discriminates against renters, because the belief is that home ownership is desirable. (Even though renting is preferably for other reasons for some people.) Is there such a thing as a socially neutral tax policy?
Oh, right, in the righty POV, only poor people’s characters benefit from not receiving welfare, not rich people’s. Thanks for the reminder.
I haven’t the slightest clue what this is supposed to say.
My point is that government shouldn’t be in the character-molding business for anyone, regardless of income. If you want to build character do good works, help an old lady across the street, get a job, do any other number of things, just leave government out of the issue. Unless of course, you believe government should also be involved in any number of other social issues (regulating marriage, promoting abstinence, etc.)
[quote=You can set up your will that way now if you want to. There’s a certain total amount of money available for the government to tax either way, and it hardly matters to the IRS whose name is on the check. As debaser points out, the only difference is the rate. So what?[/quote]
Fine. Lemme take another tack then. If restructuring collection of the tax in the manner I suggest makes little difference, then why are you so wedded to the current structure? What’s wrong with cutting through some red tape and just treating income like income? We can eliminate whatever portion of the IRS which deals with, and investigates, estate taxes. It should also simplify probating wills with the myriad trusts and dodges used to avoid/minimize estate the estate tax.
Additionally, the manner in which the current estate tax is structured provides a not-insignificant disincentive to savings and investment; a disincentive which can be minimized by shifting the tax burden to an income, rather than distribution, footing.
And this is just stupid. Inheritance isn’t welfare.
It’s a comment upon the hypocrisy of wishing to cut welfare benefits for people who should go get jobs instead, while wishing to maintain windfall inheritances for others so they don’t have to get jobs instead.
Fine, but that was a throwaway comment anyway. The topic here is money.
Unc, perhaps you could differentiate for us what types of unearned income are good and what types are bad, instead of avoiding the subject by calling it “stupid”.
If it doesn’t matter, why are you so wedded to making a cosmetic change?
Meh. When has an ostensible tax simplification legislative act ever actually simplified the tax structure, or closed rather than opened loopholes? The change you advocate, even while acknowledging its uselessness, would be just another feeding frenzy for the Beltway lobbyists, wouldn’t it?
Again meh. You’re referring only to the difference between a 40% rate and a 33% rate. The *name * of the tax don’t mean shit to an accountant.
For the at least half-dozen reasons I’ve already given here. You may find my reasons insufficient to convince you, but ignoring them entirely is dishonest.
Nothing we’ve done works, so let’s just not do anything. Wow. A conservative argument from a liberal. You just being contrary and obstinate, to be obstinate and contrary—or what?
What’s the accountant got to do with this? I’m telling you that the estate tax as currently structured is punitive; and in order to avoid being penalized there’s a substantial incentive to spend one’s money in wasteful consumption as one approaches the end of his life. Doesn’t have dick to do with who is calculating the balance sheet.
No income, earned or unearned, if derived through legal and ethical means, is bad. Income is morality neutral if so gained.
And I’m telling you that in no way is it punitive. Who’s being punished? The dead guy? If you believe in the afterlife and Heaven and hell then someone else is taking care of his reward/punishment, but it isn’t the IRS or the government, and if you don’t believe in them then the dead guy is just the same rotting corpse it would be regardless of whether the estate tax exists or not. I’m telling you that an heir not getting quite as big a windfall as he or she thinks she’s entitled to isn’t getting any punishment at all. I think you’d find poor people all over the world (myself included) eager to take such punishment.
“Oh, I’m an heir only getting $1 million in free money rather than $1.5 Million? Where do I sign up?”