So what?
Seriously. Make an argument why this matters.
If those things were taxed at 55% then you are right: Many might think there is no point. You’d see less people buying vacation homes, investing in the stock market and holding down jobs.
Yeah, I know that at 55% taxation I certainly will not opt to receive grand wealth without having to lift a finger either.
Highway system = paid for by everyone and is used by everyone, so everyone benefits from it.
Elimination of estate tax = offers marginal benefit to the children of very wealthy people as it will give them even more money that they did not earn themselves.
Your analogy of elimination of highway system = estate tax is a fail.
I was being a bit hyperbolic. But, only a bit.
There are no serious proposals that I know of by Democrats to implement a 100% death tax. However, it is going to rise to 55% next year, which is an absurdly high rate.
Also, I have seen arguments made on this board many times for a 100% rate. I was about to go and search for a cite, but the along came ElvisL1ves, literally two minutes after your post #17 arguing that point. Thanks for saving me the trouble.
It is a “laughable strawman” that Mitt Romney claimed was one justifucation for eliminating estate taxes.
I have already said there may be other, legitimate, reasons for reducing or eliminating estate taxes – which may be an interesting subject for another thread.
I am relieved that you were actually referring to a different reason than the one this thread was started about, and it is that other reason, which is utterly unrelated to anything else in this thread, that you think the estate tax should be eliminated.
I am also relieved that you find this particular argument of Romney’s “laughable”. I would say more “to weep for” but essentially we are in agreement.
Highway system = Paid for by one generation, and used by the next.
Estates of people = Paid for by one generation and passed on to the next.
True, one is a common good. But that has nothing to do with the point of the analogy. I made the analogy in response to BobLibDem claiming that people inheriting estates are getting a “windfall”.
It’s a cornerstone of human civilization that we as families and as a society work to build things that we pass along to our heirs to own and improve. As a society we do it with roads and bridges, as families we do it with businesses and homes. The analogy is fine.
More than a bit, and you even continue to do it in this very post.
It is 55% with a $1 million exemption. So it is still completely impossible to have to “start from scratch” because of the estate tax.
And the idea that a rate of 55% is absurdly high is suspect - it has been that high many times in our history, some of which were the best economic periods our country has ever seen.
If you think that this statement is an accurate summary of Romney’s position on the issue you are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong.
“- Let’s eliminate a tax to save millionaires the time and expense of avoinding it.”
The locality needs money to maintain infrastructure and operate public services.
Paying a portion of one’s income to the public treasury is a well-established principle.
Personal wealth has already been taxed as income. (There’s room for improving the rates and structures of that.)
I know you probably mean “income” here in a general sense of money received, but I want to repeat that inheritances are not taxed as income in a tax-law sense. If they were, the inheritor’s own financial circumstances would be determinative, and that is not the case. The tax is assessed upon the wealth of the dead. Whether the heir is otherwise destitute–or otherwise a multimillionaire–plays no part in it.
The quote puts Romney’s position in a better light. Certainly it’s not the best phrasing of an argument against the estate tax.
I know of a large old family farm that was broken up and sold to developers because the family had no great money when the patriarch died. The assessed value of the place was by then well into the millions because of commercial development along nearby roads. Making each year’s increased property taxes was tough enough for the family, and I think a good argument could be made that the property assessment and tax scheme in place was somewhat undesirable, in that it penalized them for keeping the place as a farm–pleasant scenery, fresh air, and a seasonal market, in an otherwise increasingly-suburbanized area. But keeping it as a farm was what they wanted, so they did–until an estate tax was levied. I believe one of the heirs ended up with the house only, and the others each got a good chunk of cash after taxes. But the place was lost to the family, for no fault of theirs in my view–and the region lost something as well.
If one of the heirs wanted to have a farm again one might say that they would have to “start from scratch” with a new one in a new area.
I did no such thing. The claim that the so-called “death tax” :rolleyes: is 100% comes from your own fairy tale.
I do note, btw, that you have no argument to offer against a 100% estate tax, even if somebody were actually proposing one - other than to assert, amazingly enough, that inheritance is the most basic human right.
Read my OP. I did not say it was a “summary”. I objected to one stated reason given for eliminating the estate tax.
You appear to agree. You think the reason is “laughable”. Good for you. Go start another thread somewhere about the good reasons to eliminate the tax.
Let’s try this approach: Person A is a hard working dynamo and due to his talents makes $10 million. Person B has the good fortune to be left $10 million from his rich aunt. Why does person B deserve his money tax-free while person A is the one who actually created wealth?
And don’t give me the “double taxation” crap. Suppose Person B’s aunt bought 10,000 shares of stock in Acme 50 years ago at $1 each. Now it’s worth $1000, but she never sold it so the current valuation of $10 million represents growth in value of $9,999,000. The aunt never paid tax on it. If Person B inherits it, the only way that tax will come from this gain is through the estate tax.
Only you benefit from receiving an inheretance. Anyone who lives near a road, school, whatever, benefits from it being there.
What should it be, then?
You stated that inheritance is a “windfall” being received by “people who did nothing to earn it”. That it will “serve only to give them a sense of entitlement and arrogance to go with induced laziness.” That it would “make your offspring into useless, lazy little shits.”
If inheriting an estate is so terrible, why don’t you want to tax it at 100%. It certainly seemed to be what you were in favor of. If not, that’s fine. What’s your number?
Everyone says they know of it, but I don’t see how this is possible. Farmland can spread estate tax payments over 15 years. They are also eligible for conservation easements and other tax breaks, up to 40% for the easement and extra reductions in value if there are multiple heirs.
I guess I’m saying I’ll need more information before I buy this particular story because as of 2007 most reports indicated there were no cited stories of families selling farms due to the estate tax. Do you maybe have a news story about it?
I know you didn’t ask me - but mine is a large exemption (say, $4 mill) followed by it being taxed as ordinary income.
’
I think that phrasing of the reason is a laughable strawman even of that one element of Romney’s reasoning.
Whatever. We can drop it. We’re talking past each other.
Who are you to decide who “deserves” their wealth? Governments have proven very bad at this over the years, you know.
Let the market decide who adds value and reward them accordingly. Let those people keep their wealth and pass it on to their heirs.
Yes, I agree that capital gains and other taxes should be paid upon liquidation of the asset. So, if I inherit a stock portfolio worth three million that was purchased for two million I will owe taxes on one million if I liquidated it. Or I could keep it but would still have to pay eventually when I did sell.
Problem solved. No need for an estate tax.