Strongly disagree.
The estate tax is the most fair tax there is.
To turn current GOP language around, why should children who have not been job creators be rewarded with riches they did nothing to earn?
I would favor a revenue neutral estate tax increase to be offset by an income tax decrease.
So you’re just going to ignore my request for a cite on your claims?
Welcome to the thread, BigAppleBucky. I’d like to take this opportunity to state that I disagree with your position on this issue.
But I also don’t assume that you have this position because you’ve been brainwashed by liberal media. I do assume that you are rational and are influenced by facts which are true and correct.
In short: Just because I disagree with you I don’t think you are ignorant, brainwashed and evil.
Enjoy!
I take comfort in the probability that we are moving in the direction of a heavy tax on inheritances, whether **Debaser **or Sam Stone likes it or not. I am sorry, however, that I probably won’t be here to see their heads exploding. I just don’t think we’re making progress THAT fast. But the offensive, palpable nonsense they’re presenting here just can’t withstand thinking minds.
A perfect society might be one that is highly capitalistic but also includes 100% inheritance tax. Each generation can earn as they are willing and capable of and leave the next generation without the baggage of entrenched wealthy families that work to subvert democracy and monopolize markets.
But the name “death tax” has not been the traditional name of the inheritance tax, but made up recently by Republicans against it. I do have to admit that Republicans are good at making up scary names for non-scary things, see “death panels.”
The name “death panel” implies that it applies to all who die. It actually applies to only a tiny percentage of those who die, those leaving with a very large estate. The tax is on estates, not on death. Actually we could call it the immense estate tax, or the super-rich dead people tax with just as much accuracy if we wanted propagandistic terms from the other side.
I couldn’t figure out what you wanted a cite on. That there aren’t other people like you? I never claimed that. 
Well, if you came from a decent family you would see how burdensome this tax actually is. :rolleyes:
I would bet a reasonable amount of money that the exemption amount will be increased (probably to $5,000,000) during the lame duck session.
He got hit with an exit tax.
This is only true now because we have a shortfall in aggregate demand. This has not always been the case and hopefully will not always be the case in the future.
But in this post you seem to believe that the estate tax is confiscatory again.
This is gifting not earning. Market forces do not apply.
]
Well if the estate isn’t worth more than $5 million dollars, you can hardly call it an estate. Can you pass the grey poupon?
I’m pretty sure those accounts are going to be part of her gross estate and will pass on to you at a stepped up basis but I am not a trusts and estates lawyer.
It not that money doesn’t get taxed as it filters through the economy and changes hands, its that it gets taxed in the same hands twice. Its like the sales tax. You are effectively gettig tax on money you already paid an income tax on. Its a fucking moral outrage, jesus wept.
When people talk about human rights, they are frequently talking about "natural law and taxes have little to nothing to do with natural laws.
We have an exit tax on anyone expatriating. You are deemed to sell all your assets at fair market value.
My understanding was that Canada had something like this at death. Your estate gets marked to market. The reason I know this is because after we implemented the mark to market exit tax, lawyers here have borrowed a lot of Canadian estate tax techniques to minimize exit taxes.
Do you guys have a $5 million dollar exemption? I’m pretty sure you don’t
I’m pretty sure thats not how your system works.
Once again, I’m pretty sure thats not how your system works, I don’t think beneficiaries pay taxes. I don’t know why Canadians give away so much money when they die, maybe they are better people than we are or maybe they hate their kids.
Almost doesn’t ecist in the US. Txicab drivers incorporate, hot dog stands incorporate.
Probably not. There are provisions specifically intended to avoid this outcome for small businesses.
I don’t think any one is talking about a confiscatory tax rate. We are talking about 35% (55% at the most).
Thats not true in the USA. Liability issues drive almost all small businesses to incorporate.
Planning should be done when you have welath, not just when you get old. Mark Zuckerberg is young and healthy. I bet he engages in estate planning.
Before governments existed, your belongings went to the strongest guy who wanted any of your stuff.
Our property laws derive from old english feudal laws under which much of your estate (if you were a wealthy noble) reverted to the crown when you died, your kids paid feudal relief and the crown let them keep your stuff. Feudal relief - Wikipedia
Your view of history and the historic immunity of estates from taxation seems a little off.
Calling the estate tax a death tax is wrong because it is levied on less than 1% of people who die. The reason we use the term death tax is to trick people into thinking it has broader reach than it actually has.
Thats because most of them are ignorant of the facts.
No but using the term death tax does. It means you are either ignorant or have very little regard for the truth.
On this topic, yes, most of the time. The only time I do is when someone starts spreading misinformation (usually out of ignorance). I try to do it in a way that is not embarassing but sometimes they double down and at some point they cite an AM radio show and everyone just nods their head and walks away.
We probably aren’t
It has for centuries, why would it stop now. I think when we get tax reform it is going to look a lot like something you don’t like (lower rates, broader base and a national sales tax kicker) but if you look deeper you will probably see a lot of closed loopholes and a reduction of the capital gains rate preference.
People have been pissing in their trousers for even longer than that.
Doesn’t make it a “human right.”
Anything increasing private concentrations of power is the result of the market. Anything where the majority of citizens make a decision is looting.
Actually, I should have addressed this too: in Mutual Aid Krotopkin briefly lays out evidence that the family is a fairly modern integument and prior to that people formed clans.
Strange how the standard conservative response to programs helping the poor and working class (welfare, ADC, health care reform, etc) is “We have to stop coddling them. They should have planned ahead/worked harder/taken personal responsibility” while the response to hypothetical* multi-millionaire small business owners who did not bother with estate planning is to wail about the horrible injustice of it all.
*Extremely hypothetical, since, as noted elsewhere in this thread, the ‘death tax’ opponents have yet to produce anyone who lost their family farm or business because of the estate tax despite plenty of looking for a poster boy.
Correct. The Canadian inheritance tax was repealed in 1987. Canada has no estate tax per se, but in the year of death all capital gains are calculated on a mark-to-market basis and treated as capital gains for the decedent in the year of death.
I don’t really think thats what they are trying to say. I think they are saying, "everything I earn is mine and noone else has a claim to any of it.
Our concept of property rights is a fairly modern concept. A concept that requires a stable society to implement. Without society, there are no property rights beyond your ability to keep anyone from taking your stuff. There is a lot of hand wringing on the right that basically amounts to a condemnation of ALL taxes. Sure, taxes distort economic behaviour and we have to weigh that distortion against what good we do with the.
Are we spending the money to feed parasitic babies who leech off the system or are we using the money to nobly invade a country that never attacked us? It all depends on how we spend the money.