Inheriting your parents’ property is not a fundemental right of yours. Your parents have the perfect right to disinherit you, their child, and you have no recourse whatsoever against them (assuming absence of fraud or similar).
Nor do parents have the absolute right to always pass all their property to their children. Taxation has been going on, and has been necessary, for as long as people have had the benefit of government. Mine, mine, mine isn’t the entire basis for civilization.
C’mon. I specifically made my statements from the parent’s perspective, not the child’s. I didn’t say or imply that the child is intitled to anything. I said the parent should have the right to pass down, not vice versa.
I’ve re-read my own post and simply cannot see how you two read my statement to be somehow against the idea of all taxes. It just isn’t. I don’t mention all taxes, or even all estate taxes in that post.
I’ve stated twice now in this thread that I do think that estates should pay taxes. I’ll say it now a third time: I’d be in favor of some sort of method of taxing estates on any as yet untaxed funds from capital gains or other means. Once an estate has settled up it’s bill, then and only then it could be passed along to the next generation or whoever the will gives it to.
Claiming that I’m somehow against all taxes or even against all estate taxes is simply not true.
One last thing…
Well, it’s not the entire basis for civilization, but it is a very important cornerstone of the foundation of it. Without ownership and private property you wouldn’t have much civilization to speak of.
If you can identify a partisanly-blinkered statement I’ve made here, you haven’t done so. You wouldn’t be the first to fail, though.
So can the child’s simply expecting to inherit a huge bundle. And, if she has a parent willing to give it to her then, she probably is already on the family dole and a “parasite”. You’ve heard of “trust fund kids” too, I hope.
Exactly. Yet we have a major party’s agenda including ending a “culture of dependency” for one segment of the population, while advocating changes that would *strengthen * a culture of dependency for another segment - while simultaneously claiming that the other guys are the ones engaging in class warfare for even bringing the subject up.
Not at all. There are many tax-free bond funds where this trust money may be held; there are also hundreds of non-income producing growth stocks in which the trust assets can be invested. Either of these devices allows capital to grow without triggering an income tax. Generally speaking, trust fund income is eligible for the same deductions and credits which apply to individual income taxes.
You don’t provide a way to differentiate which forms of wealth are entitled to be considered “fundamental rights” and which are not, much less why, except to identify estates as one that is. If there’s confusion, it begins with you.
Then inheritors’ rights to it aren’t entirely fundamental? Kindly clarify rather than complain.
Passing on wealth to one’s children is as fundamental a right as having children in the first place, or as having the marriage that produces them. This is self evident. It’s always existed. If you need to have me explain to you why these things are important then I know I’m already wasting my time even bothering to discuss it with you.
And yet, by identifying persons, UncleBeer has answered the question that he continues to insist has been answered. The argument over whether it is properly characterized as “punishment” is a separate issue, on which I have not seen UncleBeer claim to have repeatedly made his case.
Should read:
At least, not in response to repeated demands that he do so.
Gorblimey. It’s a simple question. “Who’s being punished?” requires a 2-part answer - who it is, *and * that they’re being punished. **Unc ** insists that providing only 1 part of the answer is the same as providing a complete answer. It ain’t. Wasted enough keystrokes on it yet?
It’s still more than debaser is doing just a couple of posts above, though. Give him that.
Oh brother, I hope you’re just making a wild overgeneralization and not working on anyone’s tax return. :rolleyes: I’m not going to explain the trust tax income tax return concept of distributable net income to you but I suggest you see Internal Revenue Code Sections 651 and 661 for the fun details of some of the substantial differences between returns for individuals and those of trusts.
For being the subject of a “throw away comment,” the character of the heir sure seems to stick in your craw. What possible relationship does anyone’s work ethic have to do with the tax code?
Shame on you, Hentor, UncleBeer! How dare you speak to me like that in the Pit! :eek:
Thanks guys, love ya. Now, as for whether an estate can actually be taxed at 50%, AFAICT no, it can’t. The Congressional Budget Office sez that the top marginal estate tax rate was reduced to 47% in 2005 by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Blah Blah Blah Act of 2001, and will decline to 45% over the next couple years. At the same time, exemption limits will rise.
What with exemptions, deductions, and loopholes, ISTM it’s literally impossible for any estate subject to the estate tax to be actually taxed at the top rate on the entire estate. And I’d be surprised to hear that any estate actually gets taxed at the top rate even on the entire post-exemption remainder of the estate. There really do seem to be quite a few options for reducing the impact of the tax.
This isn’t necessarily a good thing; we might be better off having a lower top rate and fewer loopholes and deductions. However, a lot of the complication seems to stem from trying to protect the viability of family businesses, etc., so it might not be simple to fix.
This I don’t quite get. If you’re putting money into a trust fund for your kid in order to avoid estate tax, why is that necessarily more of a disincentive to the kid’s work ethic than knowing they’ll inherit a bundle when you kick the bucket? After all, you don’t have to give them access to trust-fund money right away, do you? You can specify that they don’t get control of it until they’re 30, or 40, or 45, or what have you. Plenty of time in there to teach them to establish their own work habits because they can’t get their little claws on Daddy’s (or Mommy’s) money.
In fact, if I were a wealthy parent and I had to make a choice between transferring money to my kids’ delayed-access trust funds in my lifetime, and making them wait for it until I expired of some mysterious unexplained…never mind, been reading too many Agatha Christies. Still, if the only thing standing between your cash-strapped kids and fabulous wealth is your pulse… well, I’m not sure that necessarily encourages totally healthy family relationships.
At the very least, the custom of using death as the nexus for property transfer is not such an unmixed social blessing that it should be considered too sacred to tax, IMHO. So I’m not feeling too guilty over the whole “fundamental right” thingy.
(Actually, the more I think about it, the weirder it seems to me that no modern capitalist society AFAIK has evolved any formal custom of legal property transfer to heirs except at death, when property transfer can’t possibly be avoided any longer. Hmm, well, maybe weddings; do weddings count? But still, why don’t we have widespread traditions of parents handing over substantial chunks or majorities of assets to their kids when they reach retirement and the kids reach maturity? Wouldn’t that be more useful than simply hanging onto it all for another few decades? Hmm, well, maybe this is just an artifact of modern longer life expectancies, and traditionally parents did pass on their wealth pretty much when the kids became adults, because the parents seldom survived much beyond that point?)
[/useless musing]
I’ve already told you it’s about RW hypocrisy (yes, that again). We hear so much from the GOP and its talking-points parrots about the negative effects of the “culture of dependence” caused by the welfare system that it’s plainly hypocritical of them to support one caused by the tax system. The craw that the topic of character ostensibly sticks in is theirs, and I’m responding to it - unless perhaps they’re both cover stories for the ol’ “I want more, screw the rest of you”.
Clear now?
I’m with you on this. I’ve done thinking about it and find it very odd as well. If anything, weddings often serve as an example of this by pointing out how some people have odd priorities financially regarding thier families. Parents often pay for weddings for thier children. These same parents are often the types to scoff at the notion of providing a down payment for a house or other kinds of more useful financial assistance. It’s as if they don’t want to be embarassed by having a shoddy wedding in front of friends and family, but don’t care when it really counts and the money would be put to better use.
I like the Jewish idea of a bar mitzvah where a kid gets a good deal of money at a time when he’s old enough (IMO) to start to be responsible with money and savings. Friends of mine had sizable portfolios worth six figures by the time they were in college from bar mitzvah money. This is a great idea. It teaches the kids responsibility with money and the power of compounding interest.
I’m also a big fan of giving kids an allowance vs just giving them money whenever they need it. If they want something big, then they can save up for it. Another good thing my parents did for me when I was old enough to work was match me 50% on large purchases. I wanted a sailboat. Instead of just buying me one, I had to save up $400 working at Wendy’s to get a $800 boat as a birthday present.
It’s my personal experiences of learning about money and how to use it at a young age that make me skeptical of Yeticus Rex’s strategy of secrecy about money. I’d be worried that having a kid suddenly discover that he has big accounts with his name on them could be dangerous if he isn’t financially savvy enough to handle it. (Of course, you’ve given very little information to go on, so I don’t mean to assume to much.) Just out of curiousity: when were you planning on telling the kids about the trust funds? If they didn’t know at 17, would they have known at 21? 25?
Ah - so it isn’t about the tax system at all.
Yes, that’s much clearer now.
But still not *entirely * clear, obviously. Once more unto the breach, dear friend: Yes, it *is * partly about the tax code, but because it’s part of the philosophy of government’s proper role in the world of finance that is part of the current Republican agenda. That financial philosophy is based in large part on a broader philosophy of social engineering, that involves reducing (and eventually eliminating) welfare, in part on the grounds of improving the character of welfare recipients by making them get jobs. That ties into taxation policy by directly applying that philosophy to recipients of other unearned income. Bringing that hypocrisy into the conversation is a way of exploring the origins of the attitudes we’ve seen posted here. It’s too bad we haven’t seen a response, though.
Maybe you have a different threshold of tolerance for sermonizing about character from hypocrites than I do. Or maybe you can point out how it isn’t hypocritical. Either way, you’re complaining to the wrong guy about the existence of the subject.
No, I suspect we have an equally low threshold for sermonizing from hypocrites (or from anyone else, for that matter). What is troubling is that the assumption is automatically made that the heirs are layabouts, Paris Hilton-esque, and somehow have character flaws. This, of course, doesn’t add anything at all to the discussion of how best to tax inheritance. It merely throws the bugaboo of rich, spoiled, pampered kids into the equation for effect - “But if you don’t tax inheritance all the heirs will continue their Gatsby-like lifestyles, riding around in limos and saying ‘Let them eat cake.’” That sort of generalization is just as bad as the stereotype of the welfare mother made by the right. It adds nothing to the discussion and brings us liberals down to the level of the scare-mongering conservatives.
That ship has sailed quite some time ago. Every election democrats use fear to intimidate voters far more than republicans do. Elderly people won’t get social security checks, blacks will be terrorized by the police, republicans will eat your babies under the light of the next full moon. You get the idea.
And Willie Horton will move in next door.
Besides, all of the examples you’ve cited above are true (particularly the part about Republicans eating babies). 
That may be because it *isn’t * being added to the discussion, except by comparison to an argument being applied by the GOP to a different set of people under circumstances that aren’t definably different in substance, in an attempt to get them to provide a clearer understanding of their reasoning. I don’t know how to explain it to you any more clearly than that.
It’s been laid out for you already enough times. If you wish to keep flailing at your strawman instead of discussing the thread topic, go right ahead, but don’t expect any more replies.