michchamp said:

no human being needs - or has earned, or deserves - a billion dollars. that's just silly. get real, guys.

Click to expand...

If someone has $2B when they die the government takes about $800M to pass on to deadbeats that don't contribute anything. What did those deadbeats do to "earn" or "deserve" that money?

tomdalton22 said:

If someone has $2B when they die the government takes about $800M to pass on to deadbeats that don't contribute anything. What did those deadbeats do to "earn" or "deserve" that money?

Click to expand...

not everything the government spends money on is welfare.

roads, rails, airports, bridges, ports, research grants, state and local funds, disease control, public health, education... jesus.

it's like you have to lie to try to attack estate taxes.

michchamp said:

not everything the government spends money on is welfare.

roads, rails, airports, bridges, ports, research grants, state and local funds, disease control, public health, education... jesus.

it's like you have to lie to try to attack estate taxes.

Click to expand...

well....why should the guy that had $2B have to pay for roads, rails, airports, bridges, ports, research grants, state and local funds, disease control, public health, education AND welfare when deadbeats don't contribute a dime?

michchamp said:

confiscating wealth and redistributing it isn't greedy; it's the opposite of greed, don't you understand?

Click to expand...

taking something that belongs to someone else because you think they have too much and you or someone else has too little IS the epitome of greed.

tinselwolverine said:

Every society has always had to come to a negotiated way to resolve how the society was gonna pay for the common shit that a society simply has to pay for as a society.

Like the common defense:

Somebody, and everybody, to a degree, has to chip in from their own money or wealth or income or whatever to collectively pay for the shit.

So this talk of confiscation, and who is confiscating from whom, sounds like the quibbling of two petulant recalcitrant adolescents who both insist on being unequivocally ideologically right in the face of situations that societies need to address through an adult consensus.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's ideological but I draw a distinction between income and wealth taxes - and it's not insignificant. Wealth has already been taxed as income and taxing it again is a clear double tax. Also, wealth is no different from any other private property - on top of the fact that they've already taxed it, the government has no legitimate claim to it.

I accept that we all have to pay an income tax - I don't accept that we can't do it in a much simpler and more fair way, but I'm not advocating for getting rid of it (except the corporate tax - we definitely should get rid of that). I think taxes should be primarily consumption based, particularly for infrastructure while income and property taxes should be used for things like defense, public safety, public services, etc.

tomdalton22 said:

well....why should the guy that had $2B have to pay for roads, rails, airports, bridges, ports, research grants, state and local funds, disease control, public health, education AND welfare when deadbeats don't contribute a dime?

Click to expand...

especially if he or she is dead - he or she no longer has any use for those roads.

michchamp said:

not everything the government spends money on is welfare.

roads, rails, airports, bridges, ports, research grants, state and local funds, disease control, public health, education... jesus.

it's like you have to lie to try to attack estate taxes.

Click to expand...

no. you have to lie to try to make the case for why the government has a claim to it.


you're argument is "we need it so we get to take it." And you think that's not greed. Amazing.

tomdalton22 said:

well....why should the guy that had $2B have to pay for roads, rails, airports, bridges, ports, research grants, state and local funds, disease control, public health, education AND welfare when deadbeats don't contribute a dime?

Click to expand...

One way or another, if you make $2B, you used those roads, rails, airports, bridges, and ports much more than the average person.

Spartanmack said:

Maybe it's ideological but I draw a distinction between income and wealth taxes - and it's not insignificant.

Click to expand...

I do too, the inequality as I see it, is the ability to grow wealth and not call it income.

Gulo Blue said:

I do too, the inequality as I see it, is the ability to grow wealth and not call it income.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. I oppose the carried interest loophole for asset managers - capital gains taxes should only apply to gains on their own capital invested, just like everyone else. Performance fees should be taxed as ordinary income. I'm also opposed to capital gains taxes though and think they should be done away with along with the corporate tax. Then all capital gains and corp distributions should be taxed as ordinary income to the recipient.

Gulo Blue said:

One way or another, if you make $2B, you used those roads, rails, airports, bridges, and ports much more than the average person.

Click to expand...

that's not necessarily true and even if it is mostly true, they most likely paid a LOT more in income taxes generating that wealth, not to mention airport taxes, tolls, fuel taxes, etc. Also, I think this is the perfect argument for moving toward more of a consumption based tax model.

Spartanmack said:

Maybe it's ideological but I draw a distinction between income and wealth taxes - and it's not insignificant. Wealth has already been taxed as income and taxing it again is a clear double tax. Also, wealth is no different from any other private property - on top of the fact that they've already taxed it, the government has no legitimate claim to it.

I accept that we all have to pay an income tax - I don't accept that we can't do it in a much simpler and more fair way, but I'm not advocating for getting rid of it (except the corporate tax - we definitely should get rid of that). I think taxes should be primarily consumption based, particularly for infrastructure while income and property taxes should be used for things like defense, public safety, public services, etc.

Click to expand...

Spartanmack said:

especially if he or she dead - he or she no longer has any use for those roads.

Click to expand...

Not much, anyway - he or she still has a couple or so more ride on the roads to take.

Did you like my examples of how our tax dollars are put to good use?

Again, everything is negotiated - and ideologically, society does view wealth as distinct from income already - virtually everybody pays tax on income, even those who make so little they only pay the FICA taxes or W-9 income earners who make little enough to not pay income tax still have to pay self employment tax in lieu of payroll taxes; even the most out of sight down and outers are probably gonna be paying state sales from time to time.

From the various estimations I've seen (they vary a little; ranging from 1 in 550 to 1 in 700 estates being too large to qualify for the complete exemption), right around 599 beneficiaries or groups of beneficiaries out of every 600 estate beneficiaries or beneficiary groups won't pay a single penny in inheritance tax.

Conservatively estimating an average of about one and a half beneficiaries per estate (just a number I get sticking my finger in the air), only about one in one thousand estate beneficiaries will pay a penny in inheritance tax.

Nobody in my circles that I know of is going to get an inheritance from an estate that exceeds the exempt amount of five and a half million dollars (I mean I sort of know a few people that are that rich, but I really don't count them as being in my circle); as far as I know, nobody in my circles will ever pay any inheritance tax.

If I find out somebody I know will, I'm going to divorce my wife and marry that person, even if it's a dude.

The average tax on the amount of wealth that exceeded the exempt amount of five and a half million was 17%, is what I read.

I do appreciate that some people believe that ALL wealth should be exempt ideologically and philosophically; ideologically and philosophically I don't fear that beneficiaries of substantial estates who are inheriting so much money that an amount of it is going to be taxed - at a rate substantially lower than most other taxes - are being treated particularly unfairly.

tinselwolverine said:

Not much, anyway - he or she still has a couple or so more ride on the roads to take.

Did you like my examples of how our tax dollars are put to good use?

Again, everything is negotiated - and ideologically, society does view wealth as distinct from income already - virtually everybody pays tax on income, even those who make so little they only pay the FICA taxes or W-9 income earners who make little enough to not pay income tax still have to pay self employment tax in lieu of payroll taxes; even the most out of sight down and outers are probably gonna be paying state sales from time to time.

From the various estimations I've seen (they vary a little; ranging from 1 in 550 to 1 in 700 estates being too large to qualify for the complete exemption), right around 599 beneficiaries or groups of beneficiaries out of every 600 estate beneficiaries or beneficiary groups won't pay a single penny in inheritance tax.

Conservatively estimating an average of about one and a half beneficiaries per estate (just a number I get sticking my finger in the air), only about one in one thousand estate beneficiaries will pay a penny in inheritance tax.

Nobody in my circles that I know of is going to get an inheritance from an estate that exceeds the exempt amount of five and a half million dollars (I mean I sort of know a few people that are that rich, but I really don't count them as being in my circle); as far as I know, nobody in my circles will ever pay any inheritance tax.

If I find out somebody I know will, I'm going to divorce my wife and marry that person, even if it's a dude.

The average tax on the amount of wealth that exceeded the exempt amount of five and a half million was 17%, is what I read.

I do appreciate that some people believe that ALL wealth should be exempt ideologically and philosophically; ideologically and philosophically I don't fear that beneficiaries of substantial estates who are inheriting so much money that an amount of it is going to be taxed - at a rate substantially lower than most other taxes - are being treated particularly unfairly.

Click to expand...

all of your links were blocked here. will try to read them when I'm home this wknd. But I do think they're being treated unfairly and the rate or the number of estates impacted isn't all that important (I guess this is the ideological aspect - everyone should be treated the same and the fact that someone has more doesn't legitimize the government's claim to it). It's not true to say heirs aren't being forced to sell family businesses and farms - a lot of that wealth is tied up in land, equipment, buildings, etc and when the tax bill comes, they have to be sold. And if a wealthy person dies before they get their affairs in order or doesn't know the rules, their wealth above the exemption is subject to 40% tax rates - that's outrageous.

tomdalton22 said:

If someone has $2B when they die the government takes about $800M to pass on to deadbeats that don't contribute anything. What did those deadbeats do to "earn" or "deserve" that money?

Click to expand...

Maybe those who get the rest of the $1.2B should look at that $800 as an insurance policy against the deadbeats coming to their homes and killing them and taking the who kit and caboodle.

EDIT: The tax wouldn't be $800 M. It would be $794.51 M.

The first $5.49 M would be completely exempt, just as it is for any piker who leaves behind a lousy $5.49 M.

Spartanmack said:

all of your links were blocked here. will try to read them when I'm home this wknd.

Click to expand...

Oh.

Monty Python sketches.

tinselwolverine said:

Oh.

Monty Python sketches.

Click to expand...

then I'll definitely make a point to watch them.

Spartanmack said:

It's not true to say heirs aren't being forced to sell family businesses and farms - a lot of that wealth is tied up in land, equipment, buildings, etc and when the tax bill comes, they have to be sold. And if a wealthy person dies before they get their affairs in order or doesn't know the rules, their wealth above the exemption is subject to 40% tax rates - that's outrageous.

Click to expand...

I don't know who says they are - in my day to day life, I have no dealings with non-liquid assets left by a deceased benefactor that are valued at above $5.49 M.

Who does these valuations, and how are they arrived at, resulting in an immediately taxable value in the eyes of the IRS?

I would have thought that common sense would dictate that a functioning business operation with primarily illiquid assets, that the beneficiaries would choose to continue to operate rather than liquidate in order to pay taxes on some - really not negotiated at all - valuation, would be allowed to continue as the beneficiaries chose.

Now - if I'm wrong, and common sense wouldn't prevail in this situation - I would agree with you 100% that absolutely IS unfair and outrageous.

EDIT: Oh, and if a person inherits liquid assets such as stocks in a company where that person is a key part of the management of and the operations of - just as if it were liked the illiquid assets of a small business or family farm like discussed above - absolutely, that person shouldn't be required to liquidate those stocks to pay estate taxes on.

at least one leftist admits it's about envy of those who have more...

https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/...share|twsrc^m5|twgr^email|twcon^7046|twterm^3

Spartanmack said:

at least one leftist admits it's about envy of those who have more...

https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/...share|twsrc^m5|twgr^email|twcon^7046|twterm^3

Click to expand...

he's actually talking about people feeling cheated when the tax bill results in bigger tax cuts for some, and increases for others. nothing to do with envying wealth.

but even if poor people envy the wealthy... who gives a shit? it's completely immaterial to tax policy and inequality.

Typical Fox News kinda bullshit tactic to deflect attention.

Spartanmack said:

at least one leftist admits it's about envy of those who have more...

https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/943581993232752641?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Em5%7Ctwgr%5Eemail%7Ctwcon%5E7046%7Ctwterm%5E3

Click to expand...

Technically, that's not what he said. Getting a better deal isn't the same as having more.

Edit: how is MC's post from 5 minutes ago when it wasn't there 30 seconds ago when I posted?