|
The Death Tax
|
View this Thread in Original format
| donnybrasco |
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. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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? :conf: |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| Is there a threshold to the amount of inheritance that can be taxed, or is it for ALL inheritance? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| 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? :conf: |
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. |
|
|
| guerra-monstru |
| 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:p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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 :/ |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| 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... |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| 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. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| 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? :conf: |
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. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| 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. :rolleyes: |
http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/05/di...0205ceopay.html |
|
|
| 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 itself on this matter. |
|
|
|
|
