tax tsunami coming

[yo mama]

The Death Tax is the ultimate example of the unspoken government position that every dollar belongs to them, and if we are lucky they will allow us to have some of it back for our own use.

Well, I don't know about that. But it does create an incentive to spend during life rather than horde wealth until death. And frankly, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Generational wealth frequently makes the next generation lazy.

[Ursa Majoris]

Well, I don't know about that. But it does create an incentive to spend during life rather than horde wealth until death. And frankly, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Generational wealth frequently makes the next generation lazy.

Which is why exempting businesses, farms, etc for at least 5 years (I would be cool with forever) as long as they stay with the inheritor(s) is a good idea.

[yo mama]

Which is why exempting businesses, farms, etc for at least 5 years (I would be cool with forever) as long as they stay with the inheritor(s) is a good idea.

There are some provisions that give farms and family businesses *extremely* favorable benefits... so long as they continue to be run as such. But if beneficiaries want to liquidate and take the cash, then the benefits go away. And that's fair.

Edited July 23, 2010 by yo mama

[Yukon Cornelius]

There are some provisions that give farms and family businesses *extremely* favorable benefits... so long as they continue to be run as such. But if beneficiaries want to liquidate and take the cash, then the benefits go away. And that's fair.

yup but that seems to get forgotten when this stuff is brought up. evil dems want to ruin the family farms but most of the family farms are dems... at least around here.

[Ursa Majoris]

yup but that seems to get forgotten when this stuff is brought up. evil dems want to ruin the family farms but most of the family farms are dems... at least around here.

Yep. That's why the Democrats in Minnesota are actually named the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party.

[Perchoutofwater]

I would like to see it go away or tax all estates at the same rate. I'd just like to see everyone treated the same.

[Ursa Majoris]

I would like to see it go away or tax all estates at the same rate. I'd just like to see everyone treated the same.

Does that include extending the social security cap to unlimited? Then everyone would be taxed the same on that too.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I would like to see it go away or tax all estates at the same rate. I'd just like to see everyone treated the same.

 

commie

[Perchoutofwater]

Does that include extending the social security cap to unlimited? Then everyone would be taxed the same on that too.

 

SS is supposed to be an insurance program. If that is the case why should a wealthy person who is less likely to "file a claim" than someone that makes $20,000 a year pay 10, 100, or 1,000 times more? Should my home owners policy cost as much as Bill Gates?

 

BTW if SS was what it was originally intended to be, an insurance program rather than a supplemental retirement plan, and was means tested our "premiums" would be much lower. Still, even though one person of lesser risk paying more than someone of greater risk is wrong, if it was an insurance program instead of what really amounts to a redistribution program the "premiums" would be much lower, so I doubt there would be much complaint about removing the cap. As it is currently set up, as nothing more than a redistribution program I would have a problem with it.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[Ursa Majoris]

SS is supposed to be an insurance program. If that is the case why should a wealthy person who is less likely to "file a claim" than someone that makes $20,000 a year pay 10, 100, or 1,000 times more? Should my home owners policy cost as much as Bill Gates?

 

BTW if SS was what it was originally intended to be, an insurance program rather than a supplemental retirement plan, and was means tested our "premiums" would be much lower. Still, even though one person of lesser risk paying more than someone of greater risk is wrong, if it was an insurance program instead of what really amounts to a redistribution program the "premiums" would be much lower, so I doubt there would be much complaint about removing the cap. As it is currently set up, as nothing more than a redistribution program I would have a problem with it.

I very much agree that it should be a mandatory insurance program instead of an entitlement, as I've said countless times. Nevertheless, if you want all estates taxed to be fair to everyone, then logically every earned dollar should be taxed for SS. I don't think you can have it both ways, wanting to extend a tax down the wealth scale while refusing to countenance a tax being extended up the wealth scale.

[yo mama]

I would like to see it go away or tax all estates at the same rate. I'd just like to see everyone treated the same.

Everyone is treated the same way in that they're subject to the same laddered rates and exception levels. But I think what you mean to say is that the rate of taxation should be flat: same rate for everyone. You could do that and without much trouble, either.

 

The real issue is the exemptions amounts. If you want to eliminate those altogether - so that someone with a $500,000 estate pays the same rate of tax as someone with a $50,000,000 estate - understand that you're inviting unintended consequences:

1. in many cases the IRS is going to end up spending more on enforcement than its going to collect in revenue;

2. there will be more government in everyone's end-of-life; and

3. you'll have to grow the IRS to handle the added compliance and enforcement burden.

 

Right now maybe 1% (or less) of people ever have to deal with the estate tax. Imagine how much bigger government would have to grow if the estate tax affected 100% of people.

 

Please know that I'm not arguing with you... just wanted to share some food for thought in the spirit of intelligent discourse.

Edited July 25, 2010 by yo mama

[wiegie]

in the spirit of intelligent discourse.

you have been gone far too long

[Perchoutofwater]

Everyone is treated the same way in that they're subject to the same laddered rates and exception levels. But I think what you mean to say is that the rate of taxation should be flat: same rate for everyone. You could do that and without much trouble, either.

 

The real issue is the exemptions amounts. If you want to eliminate those altogether - so that someone with a $500,000 estate pays the same rate of tax as someone with a $50,000,000 estate - understand that you're inviting unintended consequences:

1. in many cases the IRS is going to end up spending more on enforcement than its going to collect in revenue;

2. there will be more government in everyone's end-of-life; and

3. you'll have to grow the IRS to handle the added compliance and enforcement burden.

 

Right now maybe 1% (or less) of people ever have to deal with the estate tax. Imagine how much bigger government would have to grow if the estate tax affected 100% of people.

 

Please know that I'm not arguing with you... just wanted to share some food for thought in the spirit of intelligent discourse.

 

Enforce the death tax on every estate over 50,000, and let's see how long we have an estate tax, when everyone is having to sell off their parents estate to pay this tax.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Enforce the death tax on every estate over 50,000, and let's see how long we have an estate tax, when everyone is having to sell off their parents estate to pay this tax.

not if they play the system right. that is the point he is trying to make.

[Perchoutofwater]

not if they play the system right. that is the point he is trying to make.

 

I got that, but you are completely missing the point I'm making. Everyone should have to jump through all those hoops to try to keep their parents estates.

[Ursa Majoris]

Does that include extending the social security cap to unlimited? Then everyone would be taxed the same on that too.

 

 

I very much agree that it should be a mandatory insurance program instead of an entitlement, as I've said countless times. Nevertheless, if you want all estates taxed to be fair to everyone, then logically every earned dollar should be taxed for SS. I don't think you can have it both ways, wanting to extend a tax down the wealth scale while refusing to countenance a tax being extended up the wealth scale.

 

[Perchoutofwater]

 

See post #34

[wiegie]

damn, Perch whines more about getting money that he didn't work for than a welfare mama whines if they threaten to make her go to work to get her check.

[caddyman]

damn, Perch whines more about getting money that he didn't work for than a welfare mama whines if they threaten to make her go to work to get her check.

wow, just wow.

[driveby]

damn, Perch whines more about getting money that he didn't work for than a college econ prof whines if they threaten to make him go to work to get his check.

fixed

[wiegie]

fixed

you bet your sweet ass that if they got rid of direct-deposit I would be furious

[yo mama]

Enforce the death tax on every estate over 50,000, and let's see how long we have an estate tax, when everyone is having to sell off their parents estate to pay this tax.

Well, you've got a point. People usually don't have a problem with taxes they don't have to pay.

[Ursa Majoris]

Well, you've got a point. People usually don't have a problem with taxes they don't have to pay.

Such as social security over $106,000, for instance.

[The Irish Doggy]

Dang, yo mama, that's some insightful diaper dirt.

[wiegie]

People usually don't have a problem with taxes they don't have to pay.

I beg to differ on the grounds that the majority of the people who oppose "death taxes" aren't going to be anywhere near having to pay the taxes themselves (and by "themselves" I mean "their estates").

Edited July 26, 2010 by wiegie