Actually, money you give to your wife and kids during your lifetime is taxed, if it exceeds certain yearly limits. (It’s called the Gift Tax.) This is to prevent people from circumventing the estate tax by giving their money away while alive.
Really. The government confiscating up to 50% of the wealth you have accumulated over your lifetime, thus denying to your heirs the fruits of your labor isn’t punitive? Some of you folks sure have a fucked-up notion of the purpose of government.
You, too with this? Just as Elvis keeps asking questions I’ve already answered, you gotta do it, too? You his protege, or butt-minder, or what?
Poor? By what standards? Even the folks at the poverty level in the United States, who derive all of their income from federal largesse, aren’t poor by the world’s standards. If it’s the poor you’re worried about, why don’t you advocate giving confiscated estates to the people of, say, Somalia? So don’t try and lay some goddamned guilt trip on me.
Sort of. Gift taxes don’t apply to spouses first off. Also, they are basically ignored. The annual exclusion for the gift tax is $11K. This means that every parent who buys or hands down a car to their child worth more than $11K reports this to the IRS so they can be taxed. Ha! You’d have to be an idiot to do such a thing.
The government has absolutely no business taxing transfers of wealth within families. I pay my taxes on my paycheck, and again when I spend my money. How I transfer it around within my own family should be none of the fed’s damn business.
Uncle, you really must be aware that there is substance to the objections of Elvis and myself. We hate each other and haven’t ever agreed on a thing that I can think of. Yet, neither of us gets how your proposal to change the estate tax from a “estate tax” of 40 something percent to a “income tax” of 30 something percent makes a bit of difference to anything but the amount and the label you are putting on it.
In any case, handing down an estate from one generation to the next is certainly not “income”. It’s not anything close to income. Income is when a worker gets paid. When that worker goes home and gives $200 to his spouse to buy groceries, that isn’t income. It’s just transfering money around within the family. Handing down an estate is the same concept on a larger scale. It should be off limits. It’s already been taxed and will be taxed again when it’s spent. The government taking a piece of it, no matter how large or small, is simply wrong.
If your rich great uncle Mortimer dies and gives you $5 million, that is income to you. Why should the guy that earns $5 million pay tax on his earnings and the guy that inherits $5 million get off free?
This “already been taxed” stuff is a crock. Much of it has NEVER been taxed. If your great uncle bought stock long ago and when he dies and you get it, that appreciation has never been taxed. Ditto any real estate appreciation.
Yeah, let’s give that bullshit “already been taxed” argument a rest.
Let’s say I go out and work to earn $10,000,000. That money gets taxed as income to me.
Now I use the remainder after taxes and pay Joe Contractor to build me a $5,000,000 home. Using the same money. And it gets taxed again! (Or at least that portion which represents Joe’s profits.) Double taxation! Double taxation! That money’s already been taxed, and now it’s being taxed again! Well, no. What’s being taxed is the transfer of wealth.
Now let’s say instead of building a house, I die and leave that $5,000,000 to my layabout son. You’re saying that transfer of wealth shouldn’t be taxed? Why not? The son didn’t earn it.
As between the contractor who works to earn the money, or the son who sits on his ass and inherits it (contributing nothing to society) whom should we be more eager to tax?
Let’s see Unc, you dodge the question when Elvis asked and and then launched an ad hominen attack on me when I re-asked it. This the Pit and I can take it, and you are correct in that I missed Elvis’s previous post asking my same snarky question and that I similarly missed your previous dodge of Elivis’ qustion , but given that you still haven’t shown how or who’s being “punished” through the estate tax.
You don’t have a clear concept of what punishment is, apparently, nor have you espoused any cogent theory as to why the fruits of one’s labors belong exclusively to one’s chosen heirs, as opposed to having a portion go to the society at large, through the mechanism of government taxation, called either the estate tax or income tax. Why don’t you go read the book by Bill Gates’ father I referred to earlier? I don’t see it as confiscation, I see it as paying one’s just due. If you happen to win in the game of life, be thankful, not bitter.
I’ve already stated that I wouldn’t have a problem with estates having to pay owed capital gains taxes. An estate paying any capital gains that someone didn’t pay in life seems perfectly reasonable to me. Why not just close this “death loophole” instead of using a crippling 48% tax across the board to fix it?
I’ve read the longer version of your little story in it’s email form that gets circulated every couple of years. You’re abbreviated version is simpler, but just as idiotic.
Paying someone for a product or service is income, and is taxed. Transfering money within a family is certainly not income and is not and should not be taxed. If you can’t tell the difference between these two things than you are an idiot.
The “little story” is my own composition. You may have seen another version of it when I posted it in a different thread. Your flailing *ad hominem * response is unsurprising, but gather up your gonads and at least try a logical reply.
Why shouldn’t it? Why should the guy who created a product be taxed while the guy who sits on his ass isn’t?
I can tell the difference between someone who contributes to society and someone who is a parasite. As between the two, I say tax the parasite.
This is a bullshit argument. If you inherit stock, it’s not taxed because it’s not fiduciary currency. When you convert that stock to spendable money, it’s gonna be taxed - when you spend it and/or through the capital gains tax.
If dodging a question means providing the answers prior to that question being asked, then yeah, I dodged it. I’m of a different opinion, tho’.
Elvis asked me “If it [the estate tax collection structure] doesn’t matter, why are you so wedded to making a cosmetic change?” I had prior to his inquiry, provide several reasons for doing such. Please review posts #22, 43 & 49 & 55.
For the previously supplied answer to your question, “Who’s being punished?” see my post #35.
You misunderstand the role of government in the lives of the citizens of a nominally free nation. It is not the citizens who have to justify keeping their wealth (and distributing it to their heirs; the government must justify their taking it. Please look at the study I linked on page one. It demonstrates that the estate does damned little towards furthering the social goals of government which you hold so dear.
On to someone who’s actually capable of following the thread . . .
Yeah, what I propose is mostly cosmetic; I’ll admit that. My natural inclination actually lies in congruency with yours; the government has no business confiscating a justly accumulated wealth simply because it’s being transferred between dead guys and live ones. I had hoped to offer a palatable compromise position. But it appears the opposition wants none of that; the opposition is entrenched and refuses to consider any alternatives to governmental theft.
Parasite? What the fuck? If he’s that bad, let’s just kill him. Then gov’t can swipe both estates. The gov’t, after all, is formed to promote the general welfare of the population. Let’s get rid of the parasites, and give their assets to the government, who will in its infinite wisdom, determine the proper allocation of fiduciary resources amongst those most deserving.
Jackass. Poverty is no more a virtue than wealth is a moral failing. Idiot.
Nah, don’t kill him. Just give him some financial incentives to get out there and produce wealth rather than just sitting back and collecting it.
Give their assets away? You mean like maybe to the rebuilding efforts along the Gulf Coast? Rebuilding efforts which may be expected to employ thousands upon thousands of taxpaying contractors and workers? Sounds like a great idea! Let’s do it!
UncleBeer takes offense. Well. I still think he doesn’t know what punitive means, even though he refers me to his prior posts #22, 43 & 49 & 55.
In these UncleBeer argues that estate distributions should be taxed as income and not via the estate tax. As I previously stated, I think that’s an interesting idea, however, Unc’s admission about taxpayers “structuring” such distributions for income tax purposes means that he’s not going to get rid of any estate tax accountants or tax attorneys, because they’ll be the ones doing the structuring.
The change Unc proposes will only change the rate that the distributions will be taxed at, and tax rates get changed up or down relatively often. In essence, UncleBeer agrees that estate distributions should be taxed but quibbles about what tax return and rate to report them on. Fair enough.
That still leaves his dodges as to why the estate tax is punitive (and leaves aside the question as to why its not punative if the same money is taxed as income). Instead, he says see my post #35, which says:
“A tax that disproportionately affects a small segment of the public while generating little revenue. Sounds like the very definition of punitive to me. Other sources tell me that the Estate & Gift tax make up only 1.1% of total federal revenues. Insignificant.”
Sounds like a non sequitor to me. Arguing that a tax generates relatively little revenue is entirely different from proving that such a tax is punitive. If you’re not entitled to anything, and you get $1M rather than $1.5 M, you haven’t been punished.
I know a guy who made $1M in 2003. In 2004 he made only $900,000. He told people he lost $100,000 in 2004. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of accounting terms of profit and loss, just like UncleBeer’s use of punishment with regard to the estate tax is a missuse of that term.
UncleBeer goes on to say:
"(Zamboniracer) misunderstand(s) the role of government in the lives of the citizens of a nominally free nation. It is not the citizens who have to justify keeping their wealth (and distributing it to their heirs; the government must justify their taking it. Please look at the study I linked on page one. It demonstrates that the estate does damned little towards furthering the social goals of government which you hold so dear.
On to someone who’s actually capable of following the thread . . ."
Well fuck you too, Unc. The study you linked to, by the way, was prepared by the Bush administration’s department of agriculture. The Bush administration has been known to make up the data so I don’t necessarily trust what they say. YMMV.
The evil government you refer to that needs to justify its taking was one that was popularly elected under the Constitution and the legislation you complain of was properly enacted by the Congress and signed by the President. It wasn’t imposed from on high by some despot or evil social engineer. Please consult the legislative history for the justification of the estate tax.
Hurricane Rita just hit Force 5, & is headeded towards Texas.
There will be plenty of corpses, of all descriptions. 
Nope. Cato, dipshit. But thanks for demonstrating conclusively your inability to follow the thread and the argument.
Is that a tacit admission that the change you espouse is indeed cosmetic?
Hardly. It’s a recognition of the reality of how the GOP and fellow travelers really operate and how their rhetoric really sounds. The triumph of hope over experience and all that. IOW you’re being duped again.
No doubt you’ll eventually tell us who’s being punished.
Then your argument really is over the difference between 40% and 33%, nothing more. Is it a wonder you can’t even convince debaser?
Speaking of whom, no, debaser, I don’t “hate” you. I pity your frequent eagerness to wear partisan blinkers, but that’s all.
No need for it to be tacit. I said that explicitly in post #71. Another fucking idiot who can’t follow the thread, or the argument. How is it that you can dig all those fragments out of my posts to quote without actually reading the posts. I mean, what the fucking fuck?
Nope. There are answers in the Cato study I linked in response to your earlier demand for a citation. This makes me absolutely certain that you did not read the citation I provided. A most dishonest and disingenuous tactic. If you’re gonna demand a citation, the obligation to read the fucking thing is incumbent on you. Simple answer is, although I don’t know why I’m bothering since you have amply demonstrated you ain’t gonna read this, taxing savings discourages savings and investment; it fosters a “die-broke” consumption mentality. Shifting the tax to another basis restrores the incentive to intergenerational savings and investments and eliminates the many dubious tax dodges the richest estates are able to avoid.
You and Zamboniracer should form a club, or something. A course, you’ll never be able to hold an actual club meeting since neither of you demonstrates sufficient mental capacity to read and remember the dates of the meetings in a newsletter.
Ah, this is more like it. You reassure me. A liberal argument if I’ve ever heard one. Hey, this program doesn’t work, no matter how many ways we’ve tried and how much money we’ve thrown at it. But, what the hell, let’s pour some more down that rathole. We can always hope it’ll flush something out besides rats.
Again, I already have. Really, Elvis. Simply asking the same question over and over again, ain’t gonna make the answer go away.
I don’t quite understand this argument. If I had $5 million and knew that when I died, I would be taxed out of $2.5 million, then I know that’s what’s going to happen. So if my goal was to always spend the money, then that’s what I’m going to do. i can’t use it when I’m dead.
But if my goal is to will it to my heirs, I don’t have an incentive to frivilously spend because I know that whatever I have left over is going to be taxed anyway. If I do decide to spend that money that will be taxed, $2.5 million, then the remaining $2.5 million will STILL be taxed and I’ll be leaving even less to my heirs, which was my original goal.
I can shake my fist at how unfair this tax is but the tax itself won’t entice me to spend because that defeats my goal: giving it to my heirs.