TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Death Tax
Pages (6): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »

The Death Tax

So the Death Tax (which sunsets in 2010 but will be up for potential renewal by the time our new President is in office) is one of my personal major concerns for this election year...and yet ANOTHER reason that I will once again, not be voting Democrat.

I don't know how anyone can justify stepping in at possibly the worst time in a person's life, and essentially stealing half of what your close relative owned (after the deductible, of course).

It's basically a socialist tax...and a Democrat notion that somehow, it's ok to diffuse wealth and punish people for being too successful in life.

It's a sickening, unfair, ruinous tax that every time I see some Politician defending, I want to kick my T.V. in.

I agree. I know damn well that I won't be paying the tax but it is still immoral to give government this kind of power. That money has already been taxed repeatedly during life...when it was earned, when it was saved, etc. It will also be taxed when it is eventually spent...and to have the feds stick their claws into the casket and take 55% of what someone leaves their kids is just farking wrong.

It not a death tax, it's an inheritance tax.

A system in which wealth is allowed to be transfered, unencumbered, from generation to generation isn't capitalism, it's an aristocracy. As a libertarian, shouldn't you be supporting policies like this that ensure wealth is distibuted by merit rather than genealogy?

Is there a threshold to the amount of inheritance that can be taxed, or is it for ALL inheritance?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Is there a threshold to the amount of inheritance that can be taxed, or is it for ALL inheritance?

There is a threshold of around $2 million I believe. Everything above that gets hit with the 55% tax.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It not a death tax, it's an inheritance tax. A system in which wealth is allowed to be transfered, unencumbered, from generation to generation isn't capitalism, it's an aristocracy. As a libertarian, shouldn't you be supporting policies like this that ensure wealth is distibuted by merit rather than genealogy?

An aristocracy is where people are RULED by a small group of wealthy people who directly set laws to suit their will. There is a huge difference between this an a democratic system like we have today.

If we want to live in a free country, people should be free to earn wealth and to dispose of it as they please. I agree that people should make their own way in life, but responsibility for this should be left to the parents..not the government. I would encourage parents to set up trusts so their kids don't get a penny from the estate (aside from college expenses) until they have already established themselves in life...meeting certain conditions such as being fully employed for several years, saving up for a down payment, etc.

The estate/death tax isn't really a tax on the inheritors. It is a tax on the person passing along property. It is a punishment in fact for living frugally and refusing to consume more than you need in your later years..

I know only 1% of households are effected by the tax...but this really is a matter of principle. If you work hard your entire life because your goal is to make life easier for your children, what right does the government have to deny you this?? You have deferred pleasure and saved your wages rather than blowing them on pointless gadgets, and the government punishes you by confiscating the majority of what you have left.

Like I said, it's just farking wrong. It twists incentives and encourages people to "die broke" rather than sharing with those they love.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Like I said, it's just farking wrong. It twists incentives and encourages people to "die broke" rather than sharing with those they love.

A 55% tax on a hundred million dollars will certainly help that individual to continue living in a life of luxury. Is 45 million not a lot by your standards? Do you know anybody with that amount of money....other than me

I don�t support it, but I find it hard to cry over the multi-millionaires that the tax applies to. You know, given their fantastic capacity to minimise their taxable income when they're alive. one of my best mates who is a millionaire recently filed a tax return and his taxable income was about half of mine :/

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt There is a threshold of around $2 million I believe. Everything above that gets hit with the 55% tax.

In that case bollocks to them

Anyone getting left over that kind of money does not need to worry about paying any tax as it will not affect their life one little bit

I'd probably say that threshold is too high...

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It not a death tax, it's an inheritance tax. A system in which wealth is allowed to be transfered, unencumbered, from generation to generation isn't capitalism, it's an aristocracy.

Yep, which is why the tax exists. The only people affected are CEO's and professional athletes, and most of the time both groups will admit to making more than their fair share in income and bonuses during their careers... in most cases these income levels pay far less in taxes during their life than one would expect.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It not a death tax, it's an inheritance tax. A system in which wealth is allowed to be transfered, unencumbered, from generation to generation isn't capitalism, it's an aristocracy. As a libertarian, shouldn't you be supporting policies like this that ensure wealth is distibuted by merit rather than genealogy?

What makes you think Libertarians support taxes? Have you read their policies on that subject? I think you're confusing the word "Libertarian" with "Liberal", but the Libertarian Party is about less government intrusion and ZERO taxes.

I can only attribute this belief that it is OK to punish the wealthy and their "genealogy", to pure jealousy. But we don't live in a communist country...or a socialist country. It's not the Government's duty or right to distribute wealth earned AFTER all applicable taxes have been paid and there still happens to be a fair amount left over.

People who make more are in a higher tax bracket to begin with. They're ALREADY paying more than their fair share.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Yep, which is why the tax exists. The only people affected are CEO's and professional athletes, and most of the time both groups will admit to making more than their fair share in income and bonuses during their careers...

Oh really? Show me some proof that these people believe this.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I can only attribute this belief that it is OK to punish the wealthy and their "genealogy", to pure jealousy. But we don't live in a communist country...or a socialist country.

We also don't live in a feudal one, where your lot in life is determined by what family you're born into.

quote:

People who make more are in a higher tax bracket to begin with. They're ALREADY paying more than their fair share.

This is a separate debate, but that's not usually the case. It is supposed to work that way... but the tax code is broken.

quote:

Oh really? Show me some proof that these people believe this.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/05/di...0205ceopay.html

Bottom line: The government did not create the wealth, it should not be the government's place to arbitrarily take possession of that wealth just because someone has passed on. The rights of the creator to pass the fruits of his/her labor on to those of his/her choosing should always supercede the will of the government to attempt to forcibly steal that wealth for its own coffers in any true democracy based on individual rights and justice. Furthermore, the amount of wealth is irrelevant in this argument as it is the principle of the "death tax" that is being debated, not how it should be applied to those in the highest income brackets. Everything else is simply wealth envy.

The one simple caveat to this would be: If a person wants the government to have their money after they die, they can certainly account for that in their last will and testament. Otherwise the government can go fuck itself on this matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Bottom line: The government did not create the wealth, it should not be the government's place to arbitrarily take possession of that wealth just because someone has passed on. The rights of the creator to pass the fruits of his/her labor on to those of his/her choosing should always supercede the will of the government to attempt to forcibly steal that wealth for its own coffers in any true democracy based on individual rights and justice. Furthermore, the amount of wealth is irrelevant in this argument as it is the principle of the "death tax" that is being debated, not how it should be applied to those in the highest income brackets. Everything else is simply wealth envy. The one simple caveat to this would be: If a person wants the government to have their money after they die, they can certainly account for that in their last will and testament. Otherwise the government can go fuck itself on this matter.

Balls! It's a tax on the rich and imo they don't get taxed nearly enough so excuse me if I have no sympathy for them...

Rich people who don't pay their fair share of taxes shoulder ALL blame for the vast majority of societies ills so anything to get them to contribute more to the society that has allowed them to grow stupidly rich at the expense of others gets my full support.

There is no way whatsoever that the US inheritance tax is fair, the threshold should be much lower

In the UK, the threshold is �300,000 ($600,000) and you have to pay 40% after that amount of any inheritance

I'd probably say that with the rising price of houses a fair inheritance tax would be something like $500k - $1m = 30%; $1m - $2m = 50%; and $2m+ = 75%

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley ... imo they don't get taxed nearly enough so excuse me if I have no sympathy for them...

Right--in your opinion...What does your opinion matter on the matters of someone else's personal finances? It's none of your business and none of my business. It's THEIR private property and is therefore at the whim of the owner. What you think about his financial position is inconsequential.

quote:

Rich people who don't pay their fair share of taxes shoulder ALL blame for the vast majority of societies ills so anything to get them to contribute more to the society that has allowed them to grow stupidly rich at the expense of others gets my full support.

Right..."fair"--a totally subjective and meaningless construct. What is fair? Let me ask 50 different people and I'll give you 50 different answers. How fair is it that the rich guy pays not only a much higher absolute amount of dollars, but also a progressively higher percentage of income, despite the fact that he/she derives the same amount of policing, radio, highway construction, national defense, etc. as the guy who pays NOTHING into the system? Well, that's not exactly screaming out "fair" either.

One simple question to ask is this: Why are you more in favor of the government getting all of the assets when a person dies as opposed to the person being able to determine where his/her assets go? I can only believe that you think that someone (the heirs) getting a windfall without having to work their ass off for it (though they did just lose a close loved one) is less desireable than simply seeing all of that money confiscated by the government (and used for various welfare programs and other federal boondoggles). Simply put, you'd rather the government get the money simply so the heirs can not because you can't stand the thought of them getting something while you get nothing (for doing nothing I might add). Hello wealth envy! Class warfare lives on! However George, as an avid socialist, your motives are at least easily understandable.

I'm not a big fan of Larry Kudlow..

but he nails it here...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Right--in your opinion...What does your opinion matter on the matters of someone else's personal finances? It's none of your business and none of my business. It's THEIR private property and is therefore at the whim of the owner. What you think about his financial position is inconsequential.

Sorry but when somebody has been able to acquire that much wealth throughout their lifetime then it has been at the expense of others and the society they live in, and the economic model it supports, has allowed that to happen. They owe society BIG time (note the word "society" not "government")

quote:

Right..."fair"--a totally subjective and meaningless construct. What is fair? Let me ask 50 different people and I'll give you 50 different answers. How fair is it that the rich guy pays not only a much higher absolute amount of dollars, but also a progressively higher percentage of income, despite the fact that he/she derives the same amount of policing, radio, highway construction, national defense, etc. as the guy who pays NOTHING into the system? Well, that's not exactly screaming out "fair" either.

See above. Without poor people to exploit there would be no rich people paying more in absolute terms to society through their taxes. So yes, "fair" means the rich pay more

quote:

One simple question to ask is this: Why are you more in favor of the government getting all of the assets when a person dies as opposed to the person being able to determine where his/her assets go? I can only believe that you think that someone (the heirs) getting a windfall without having to work their ass off for it (though they did just lose a close loved one) is less desireable than simply seeing all of that money confiscated by the government (and used for various welfare programs and other federal boondoggles). Simply put, you'd rather the government get the money simply so the heirs can not because you can't stand the thought of them getting something while you get nothing (for doing nothing I might add)

Not really. I'd just like to see society able to pay for more hospitals and that kind of shit...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Sorry but when somebody has been able to acquire that much wealth throughout their lifetime then it has been at the expense of others and the society they live in, and the economic model it supports, has allowed that to happen. They owe society BIG time (note the word "society" not "government")

Says who? usually pioneers and huge risk takers pursued a vision that made the world a better place for all--and they were duly compensated for their contributions to society.

quote:

See above. Without poor people to exploit there would be no rich people paying more in absolute terms to society through their taxes. So yes, "fair" means the rich pay more

That statement is just built on faulty assumptions that "rich" people only "exploit" poor people for personal gain. How about the "rich" people that created new jobs and provided incomes for people that otherwise would've remained unemployed? This is not a one-sided argument no matter how you look at it.

If you want to debate the merits of CEO compensation packages, that is one thing (and an area that I'd have no problem seeing massive reform, though certainly not on a Federal level). However, as it pertains to the death tax I hardly see any of the above as an excuse to arbitrarily tell someone they have "too much" money and therefore they have to give some back. I believe that kind of shit belongs as far away from my capitalism-based democracy as possible.

quote:

Not really. I'd just like to see society able to pay for more hospitals and that kind of shit...

And I would like to see more things like that built as well, though I'd much prefer to see about a trillion bucks in special interest projects canned in order to devote the funds my government has already taken to something more broadly beneficial. The government already takes in more than enough money to do all of these things and more but too many politicians (cooks in the kitchen if you will) make this concept fleeting.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Says who? usually pioneers and huge risk takers pursued a vision that made the world a better place for all--and they were duly compensated for their contributions to society.

What contributions to society?! Soaking up the nations wealth into the hands of a tiny elite?!

quote:

That statement is just built on faulty assumptions that "rich" people only "exploit" poor people for personal gain. How about the "rich" people that created new jobs and provided incomes for people that otherwise would've remained unemployed? This is not a one-sided argument no matter how you look at it.

In order to maximise their profits (for themselves) corporations big and small employ the minimum amount of workers thereby keeping their costs down. Not only does this increase pressure and stress on the workforce, it contributes to employment figures. I'd say rich people cause unemployment rather than ease it...

quote:

If you want to debate the merits of CEO compensation packages, that is one thing (and an area that I'd have no problem seeing massive reform, though certainly not on a Federal level). However, as it pertains to the death tax I hardly see any of the above as an excuse to arbitrarily tell someone they have "too much" money and therefore they have to give some back. I believe that kind of shit belongs as far away from my capitalism-based democracy as possible.

If you're happy living in a country riddled with crime and poverty then I can't really argue with that can I? On the other hand...

quote:

And I would like to see more things like that built as well, though I'd much prefer to see about a trillion bucks in special interest projects canned in order to devote the funds my government has already taken to something more broadly beneficial. The government already takes in more than enough money to do all of these things and more but too many politicians (cooks in the kitchen if you will) make this concept fleeting.

Yep, they spend it all on big fuck off guns!

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov We also don't live in a feudal one, where your lot in life is determined by what family you're born into.

So what's your point?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov This is a separate debate, but that's not usually the case. It is supposed to work that way... but the tax code is broken.

Oh really? My grandfather used to make a low to mid-level six-figure salary back in the 1970's, and even after taking advantage of any write-offs (and there were a lot), he was in this tax bracket that sucked nearly half of his income away.

There is this myth that people who make a lot of money somehow get around paying taxes. Just because they don't pay it in direct income, doesn't mean that they didn't pay it in some other way. There is no getting around paying taxes. Kid yourself all you want...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/05/di...0205ceopay.html

THAT'S your "proof"???

The article is about board members of companies who think CEO's make too much, not CEO's! And even then, it's only one-third who think that CEO's make too much...hardly "many", as you described (not that their opinion matters anyway, in terms of defending your statement).

And there's no mention of the Athletes that you claim think they "make too much money" either.

Admit it; You pulled that statement out of your rectum.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Bottom line: The government did not create the wealth, it should not be the government's place to arbitrarily take possession of that wealth just because someone has passed on. The rights of the creator to pass the fruits of his/her labor on to those of his/her choosing should always supercede the will of the government to attempt to forcibly steal that wealth for its own coffers in any true democracy based on individual rights and justice. Furthermore, the amount of wealth is irrelevant in this argument as it is the principle of the "death tax" that is being debated, not how it should be applied to those in the highest income brackets. Everything else is simply wealth envy. The one simple caveat to this would be: If a person wants the government to have their money after they die, they can certainly account for that in their last will and testament. Otherwise the government can go fuck itself on this matter.

Beautifully written and EXACTLY dead-on RIGHT!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Balls! It's a tax on the rich and imo they don't get taxed nearly enough so excuse me if I have no sympathy for them... Rich people who don't pay their fair share of taxes shoulder ALL blame for the vast majority of societies ills so anything to get them to contribute more to the society that has allowed them to grow stupidly rich at the expense of others gets my full support. There is no way whatsoever that the US inheritance tax is fair, the threshold should be much lower In the UK, the threshold is �300,000 ($600,000) and you have to pay 40% after that amount of any inheritance I'd probably say that with the rising price of houses a fair inheritance tax would be something like $500k - $1m = 30%; $1m - $2m = 50%; and $2m+ = 75%

Your country's history of wealth, the wealthy class and your government systems, are different from ours.

I can't speak fully to what's fair and what's not in your country, given this history of rigid class separatism, but over here, it's wholly unfair to label people of wealth as being part of some grand conspiracy to keep the rest of our society down, and as people who bring society most of it's ills. Now you're talking like Trancer. It's just absurd.

I'd also add that the "1% theory" (of people who feel any effect from this tax) has been challenged in recent history. It's part of why the code has been slowly changing to represent more current income levels (cost of living increases, or inflation, had never been factored in to the original deductible amount).

But I'll even give you one personal example of why this tax is unfair;

A close friend's father passed away in 2004, about a decade before before he would have been at the minimum legal retirement age of 65. He'd taken an early retirement just a few years before, in 2001. He was always VERY frugal throughout his entire life, in anticipation of taking the early retirement, and the money he was going to need to live on in order to pull it off. He went without a lot of luxuries throughout his life as a result, luxuries he could have easily afforded, had he chosen to work another decade.

Now; had he died just a few years earlier, in 2001 for example...when the old tax law was still in place and the inheritance deductible was lower...his family would have had to cough up about $250,000.00 in Inheritance Tax. In essence, the father and the family would have been punished by the government for the father having the audacity to DIE too early, before he had a chance to spend his hard earned money in retirement that he planned and saved for.

So how does this make the father part of this mythical "dirty rich people" that you all seem to think exist? He was an ordinary guy with a pretty ordinary service job, who managed to build up wealth by saving money, more than anything. But now, you'd punish someone who makes the same amount of money as anyone else for NOT spending enough?

I'll tell you another thing; $2 million, or $6 million dollars is NOT a lot of money anymore. This is middle-income money we're talking about here. It's family homes, farms and/or businesses. And more often than not, it's getting distributed to more than one family member too. So this fantasy about "wealth building" is again a Democratic Party lie.

Those of you who are jealous of people who make more than you, or who have managed to save more than you, maybe YOU need to try harder yourselves and stop coveting your neighbors wealth.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley What contributions to society?! Soaking up the nations wealth into the hands of a tiny elite?!

Cars, computers, railroads, communications, soft-drinks, luxuries, etc, etc, etc. Nobody makes consumers buy anything by force--financial transactions are generally voluntary and mutually beneficial. I'm sorry you take such a negative view of progress and societal advancement.

quote:

In order to maximise their profits (for themselves) corporations big and small employ the minimum amount of workers thereby keeping their costs down. Not only does this increase pressure and stress on the workforce, it contributes to employment figures. I'd say rich people cause unemployment rather than ease it...

It's called business. I can assure you the alternative (without an active government fucking up the natural flow of things in the background) is much worse. How do rich people cause unemployment when they've created all those jobs out of thin air? I think your thesis needs a lot more elaboration in order to support any such notion that providers of jobs somehow exacerbate unemployment.

quote:

If you're happy living in a country riddled with crime and poverty then I can't really argue with that can I? On the other hand...

Crime exists everywhere in this world. Some places are worse off than others.

quote:

Yep, they spend it all on big fuck off guns!

so the government wastes tons of money on defense, yet you want to argue that they should be able to take much, much more money from dead people in order to spend it on more....guns? I'd rather the heirs keep the money and spend it on hookers and beer.

I am against that sort of wealth redistribution, at least in the United States. The people we call "poor" live a lifestyle so far above what most human beings on the planet can manage -- much less human beings from earlier periods of history -- that it is just plain wrong to consider them anything but extremely privileged. There is simply no need to provide more for them.

The people who get these tax breaks are people who would take their business elsewhere to other countries that will give them a bigger tax break. In order to keep the rich in america we have to protect their interests, and the more rich people in america the better.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Your country's history of wealth, the wealthy class and your government systems, are different from ours. I can't speak fully to what's fair and what's not in your country, given this history of rigid class separatism, but over here, it's wholly unfair to label people of wealth as being part of some grand conspiracy to keep the rest of our society down, and as people who bring society most of it's ills. Now you're talking like Trancer. It's just absurd.

It's not a conspiracy, it's simply an observation of how extreme capitalist systems work when the market is unregulated

quote:

I'll tell you another thing; $2 million, or $6 million dollars is NOT a lot of money anymore. This is middle-income money we're talking about here

Think you need to remove your head from the clouds! The average GDP in America is $46,000, which means the true average wage will be much lower. How on Earth do you come to the conclusion that $2million, let alone $6million, is "middle income"?! That's the most absurd statement I think I've ever seen someone make on here! The average person would have to work for 44 years just to have earned that in their life (and have not spent anything at all). For your $6m figure the average person would have had to have worked for 130 years without spending ANYTHING!

quote:

Those of you who are jealous of people who make more than you, or who have managed to save more than you, maybe YOU need to try harder yourselves and stop coveting your neighbors wealth.

Ah the old stock reply from the privalaged few! No concept whatsoever about society and the problems it faces. If only people weren't so lazy or stupid then EVERYONE would be a millionaire! That's the American dream after all!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Cars, computers, railroads, communications, soft-drinks, luxuries, etc, etc, etc. Nobody makes consumers buy anything by force--financial transactions are generally voluntary and mutually beneficial. I'm sorry you take such a negative view of progress and societal advancement.

I don't think you can say ALL progress our societies have made have been because of rich people!

quote:

It's called business. I can assure you the alternative (without an active government fucking up the natural flow of things in the background) is much worse. How do rich people cause unemployment when they've created all those jobs out of thin air? I think your thesis needs a lot more elaboration in order to support any such notion that providers of jobs somehow exacerbate unemployment.

Why can't more of a companies profits be spent on either higher wages or hiring more staff?

quote:

Crime exists everywhere in this world. Some places are worse off than others.

Would you agree that social inequality is the biggest cause of crime?

quote:

so the government wastes tons of money on defense, yet you want to argue that they should be able to take much, much more money from dead people in order to spend it on more....guns? I'd rather the heirs keep the money and spend it on hookers and beer.

Nope. Think they should spend it on social care and erradicating poverty

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I am against that sort of wealth redistribution, at least in the United States. The people we call "poor" live a lifestyle so far above what most human beings on the planet can manage -- much less human beings from earlier periods of history -- that it is just plain wrong to consider them anything but extremely privileged. There is simply no need to provide more for them.

Being in poverty is not relative. It is an actual state. Just because there are others in worse levels of poverty than in America does not mean that the millions suffering in poverty in America don't need any help (or, as you are trying to suggest, that they aren't even living in poverty)

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.