are you kidding?

How in the hell is the estate tax going to encourage growth? All it does is encourage people to hide their wealth overseas. The exact opposite of encouraging growth.

And if you're going to start decreasing the debt, the first thing we need to do is shrink the fed. If they start the estate tax back up now theres 0 chance it would be used to pay down debt. It would be used as a justification to expand medicare/medicaid or some other worthless government program.


Property taxes are a much better way to tax wealth since its much harder to hide and its just as "progressive". If someone gets a house + sack of cash in their inheritance they still need to pay taxes on the house. If the estate tax is in force, they get the house + hide the sack of cash where it wont be affected. The result is a loss in tax revenue.

Its the same as corporate taxes and dumb shit like the capital gains tax which only serves to hinder investment and increase costs for consumers.

12/3/2009 11:25:00 AM

12/3/2009 11:35:16 AM

Just for the record im not in the nut job group that equates the death tax with some hyperbolic evil or whatever bullshit ^ is about.

I think its a really stupid way to tax wealth.

12/3/2009 11:41:29 AM

It is wrong, though, just like almost all taxes that currently exist. Just because the vast majority of people have been conditioned to believe that government theft is acceptable doesn't mean it is.

12/3/2009 11:45:31 AM

Taxation is a power granted to the government by the people in order to provide certain universal services.

The problem in our governement is not the idea of taxes, its the type of taxes used and what the governement does with the taxes.

Decrying the concept of taxation as evil is childish. A certain level of taxation is required for our form of government to function. Certainly, though, the current level of taxation and the current functions performed by government should be changed.

12/3/2009 11:50:16 AM

The estate tax is wrong. And I doubt many of us will ever have to worry about paying it, but it still doesnt make it right. I believe that the majority still oppose it. Its just those who are jealous/envious that seem to support shit like this.

12/3/2009 11:58:48 AM

Quote :

"Its just those who are jealous/envious that seem to support shit like this."

Textbook conditioning.

12/3/2009 12:02:08 PM

As someone who has inherited an estate, and benefited from not having to pay estate taxes, let me tell you some of the often unseen consequences of an estate tax... However, with my estate, the limits would have needed to be lowered substancially for it to affect me.

If you inherit a lot of property, which is often the biggest thing inherited from an estate, and it is subject to an estate tax, that property immediately becomes a liability unless you have enough cash in the estate to settle up on the taxes for the valuation of the property. That means that you and your siblings may have inherited the nice home on the beach that you want to take your family to, but unless you have a few hundred thousand dollars laying around to pay the tax, you're going to have to sell that home. And once you sell that home that your parents worked so hard for, and pay nearly 50% in taxes, you won't have much left of your parents to split.

There are also a lot of other nasty complications that would come from inherited retirement accounts.

It wreaks of double taxation and comes from a petty and envious mindset that generally persists with those who grew up disadvantaged, and wont be happy until they get a few shots at those who did.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2009 12:18:40 PM

^x6 There's nothing "nut job" about it--concern about the estate tax is fairly common. And if this tax isn't akin to grave robbing, I'm not sure what is.



[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2009 12:19:15 PM

How is that conditioning? Envy is exactly what drives this. A bunch of people jealous that they dont have an inheritance and dont want others to get one. Or take some of thiers to fund the programs so they can keep their own money. Its ridiculous.

If you support the estate tax then you should support it across ALL levels. Otherwise its pure hypocrisy and discrimination.

12/3/2009 12:43:57 PM

Quote :

"That means that you and your siblings may have inherited the nice home on the beach that you want to take your family to, but unless you have a few hundred thousand dollars laying around to pay the tax, you're going to have to sell that home."

12/3/2009 12:46:09 PM

taxes are theft

12/3/2009 12:58:27 PM

^^ Your emoticon represents typical far-left class warfare horseshit. The people who earned the money to own that nice beach home and were already taxed on it are entitled to bequeath it to their loved ones without further taxation--how is the government entitled to yet another bite at the apple?

12/3/2009 1:04:13 PM

I don't see how it's jealousy as I could afford a beach house.

Quote :

"The people who earned the money to own that nice beach home and were already taxed on it are entitled to bequeath it to their loved ones without further taxation"

The discussion is whether they're entitled or not, isn't it?

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 1:05 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2009 1:04:45 PM

they have already paid the taxes on it. When does something become YOURS? Because if you believe in private property then you should be able to do with it or give it to whoever you want to. Not just to whoever the ignorant masses and politicians say to or want thier share.


McDanger has some jealousy issues. imo

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 1:05 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2009 1:04:47 PM

Quote :

"Because if you believe in private property then you should be able to do with it or give it to whoever you want to."

You aren't allowed to do this with your private property as it is. Not in theory, not in practice. There are always boundaries to use and to gift-giving.

Boy oh boy who will stand up for the privileged in this country?

12/3/2009 1:06:28 PM

Really? So if I want to flush a grand down the toilet, give to charity, or bury it I can expect the police to bash in my door demanding 45%?


Its not about being priviledged you idiot, its about discrimination and right and wrong. At what point does something become YOURS?

Quote :

"The discussion is whether they're entitled or not, isn't it? "

If their parents willed it to them and dont owe on it, then yes they are.

12/3/2009 1:09:30 PM

Quote :

"Really? So if I want to flush a grand down the toilet, give to charity, or bury it I can expect the police to bash in my door demanding 45%?"

This has no connection to what we're talking about. But in case you're wondering, flushing it down the toilet is a crime. I'm sure it depends on where you bury it and whether or not you're defacing/destroying it in the process.

Giving it to charity should help your tax burden!

Quote :

"Its not about being priviledged you idiot, its about discrimination and right and wrong. At what point does something become YOURS?"

Stuff has to get paid for in this country, including the silly wars that your party loves to get us involved in. There's a limited amount of resources in this country. I'd rather take play money than food money.

Quote :

"If their parents willed it to them and dont owe on it, then yes they are."

Why?

12/3/2009 1:13:37 PM

Why would the government have a claim to it? They already taxed it when it came in as income. They can get current taxes off existing property and new property purcased with the inheritence.

If the government were wise in its spending i wouldn't have too much of a problem with it (if the government were wise in its spending we probably wouldn't need the tax at all), but currently the money is much better placed back into the economy in the form of investments.

If the money is invested it means new jobs which means new income tax revenue for wasted spending like the wars and medicare and social security and whatever dumb shit this government wants to do.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 1:23 PM. Reason : a]

12/3/2009 1:23:06 PM

Quote :

"Why would the government have a claim to it? They already taxed it when it came in as income. They can get current taxes off existing property. "

Property's changing hands. They taxed one person for it. Now they're taxing another.

wrt to the rest of your post: every time I see you post, I agree on general methodology for running the government, but disagree on what should be covered by a minimal state.

12/3/2009 1:24:59 PM

McDanger do you own a car?

Yes, Im not argueing about taxes McDanger. If you MUST know, i favor a consumption tax. The point is about private property. Taxes were already paid. Its as if you feel that people never OWN anything, the govt only lets you rent it for your life.

Why do the kids get the house that the parents willed to them? hahah. I suppose you only want the govt to seize a part of the house.. but what about the pictures, furniture, etc that they willed thier kids. Do you feel you have a right to it as well?

12/3/2009 1:28:13 PM

Quote :

"Why would the government have a claim to it? They already taxed it when it came in as income. They can get current taxes off existing property and new property purcased with the inheritence. "

Why is this argument still used by rational people?

Businesses pay taxes on their profits, but their workers' salaries are still taxed. You pay income taxes, but pay sales taxes when you spend your income.

12/3/2009 1:28:25 PM

Because it become a property right Boone. imo

Bc after i paid all those taxes and BOUGHT something.. do i finally own it? Please just answer that.

12/3/2009 1:30:58 PM

Quote :

"McDanger do you own a car?"

Yes.

Quote :

"The point is about private property. Taxes were already paid. Its as if you feel that people never OWN anything, the govt only lets you rent it for your life."

The person that owned those resources died. It's better for society to see that money flow back into funding things for the public good, in my opinion, then to ensure that a bunch of trust fund babies get to relax without working.

Quote :

"I suppose you only want the govt to seize a part of the house.. but what about the pictures, furniture, etc that they willed thier kids. Do you feel you have a right to it as well?"

You seem to misunderstand the difference between personal items that are a resource and personal items that aren't a resource.

Quote :

"Bc after i paid all those taxes and BOUGHT something.. do i finally own it? Please just answer that."

If you're alive, yes. This doesn't mean that you get to do whatever you want with it, though. I thought that'd be common sense.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2009 1:31:28 PM

property rights means being able to buy and slaughter a puppy if i see fit. it's black and white.

12/3/2009 1:36:42 PM

Quote :

"Bc after i paid all those taxes and BOUGHT something.. do i finally own it? Please just answer that."

Yes, but if you sell it, the buyer pays taxes on it. If you give it to a relative, the relative pays taxes on it. If you give it to a relative posthumously, the relative still pays taxes on it.

You're advocating for an exception to the rule when death is involved.

12/3/2009 1:37:43 PM

Quote :

"Businesses pay taxes on their profits, but their workers' salaries are still taxed. You pay income taxes, but pay sales taxes when you spend your income."

That's the way it is, but that isn't the way it should be. The government tries to tax you every time money changes hands. Of course the statists think that's a good idea, but anyone that values freedom doesn't. The federal government has to levy some taxes in order to function. It wouldn't have to be a very high tax if the government was only doing things specified by the government, but in order to fund all the crap we have now, they have to tax you at every opportunity.

Quote :

"property rights means being able to buy and slaughter a puppy if i see fit. it's black and white."

Actually, yes. You can buy and slaughter a chicken can't you? Animals are considered property.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 1:42 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2009 1:40:09 PM

^Does your keyboard have a "hyperbole lock" key, or something?

12/3/2009 1:42:14 PM

re: my ideal state.

The state should provide the basic foundation for an individual's right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. I think the idea of giving poor people just enough handouts to be dependent on the party that gave them those handouts, is the most evil thing in the world. Its not helping them in any way. They need the opportunity to get out of their situation. That means a high quality education and maybe some assistance during the process. No one is talking about doing this in either party. The dems love the dependence because it gets them voted in, and the reps hate it because it means higher taxes.

Better education would have a high upfront cost, but once you get poor people educated they pass the value of that education on to their kids and they need less government support.

But its just not practical to hope for that given our current government. I would much rather shrink the size of the government now in an attempt to squeeze out the waste, and then go back and fix it later, then try to deal with pushing actual reform through the completely corrupt system we have now.

Its the same with healthcare. I have 0 faith that our current government will do anything but piss away money to special interests and increase our debt, so i'd rather them do nothing at all. That they want to keep insurance around in its current form (and model the public plan after it no less) at all is a sure sign that they've all been paid off.

Atleast if we shrink the fed theres a chance of that money going to new job formation. Is it ideal? No, but i think its a better plan than the current one.

Quote :

"Why is this argument still used by rational people? Businesses pay taxes on their profits, but their workers' salaries are still taxed. You pay income taxes, but pay sales taxes when you spend your income."

Businesses dont pay taxes. Property taxes are a form of consumption tax like sales tax. The estate tax is just wierd. Its sort of an income tax, but if its to the children its kind of a gift tax. Those kids are going to pay taxes on their property and whatever else they consume with it. All the estate tax does is get a little sooner and gives the kids a reason to hide it.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM. Reason : re]

12/3/2009 1:42:46 PM

would you be ok with the govt seizing your car today? Assuming you have it paid off.

Right, the person who OWNED those things left a map on what THEY wanted to do with it. Exactly. So in the end the person who worked, purchased, paid taxes on the stuff they accumulated decided what they wanted to do with THIER STUFF.. Not mcdanger.. which drives people with your mindset nuts.

No, I see them all as belonging to the person who purchased them Mcdanger.

I could certainly do anything I wanted with my property that wasnt illegal or harm others. I thought THAT was common sense.

No pink, but you can choose to buy a puppy with your private property.


Boone, do you pay taxes on the gifts your receive? How about if your parents cook you a meal. The govt send you a bill?

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2009 1:42:57 PM

so if its life+pursuit of happiness, why guarantee education and not health care? why should I get free secondary education but still go bankrupt b/c i need chemotherapy? should i have to work to live but not work to get educated?

for the record, in my ideal state, there would be single payer vouchers for both. take it and go to whatever hospital/school you want.

^No? Are you saying that I can't do whatever I want with my property? Says who?

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 1:46 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2009 1:46:10 PM

Quote :

"Right, the person who OWNED those things left a map on what THEY wanted to do with it."

I OWN my house. Can I give it to someone without them having to pay taxes, simply because I will it to be so?

The answer is obviously "no."

Why would my death affect this?

12/3/2009 1:46:18 PM

Quote :

"which drives people with your mindset nuts."

this always amuses me

where do you get your opinion of "liburuls" from? where do you gather your information on how everyone of that "mindset" thinks? can we talk about all the people with your "mindset" next? they're all the same, you know.

12/3/2009 1:51:13 PM

Quote :

"so if its life+pursuit of happiness, why guarantee education and not health care? why should I get free secondary education but still go bankrupt b/c i need chemotherapy? should i have to work to live but not work to get educated?"

You dont have to guarantee education. Its just something in the current system that is done somewhat ok that could be improved to meet the need. Healthcare is something different entirely. Education has a controlled set of costs and its very easy to anticipate changes.

The gov certainly good provide a state owned healthcare system that might work, however in the current system theres no chance of this. And before you bring up the public option, that shit is insurance, not healthcare. Theres a massive difference and lots of people seem to ignore it because they either have something to gain from a fed insurance racket, or they dont know any better.

12/3/2009 1:54:06 PM

Quote :

"I OWN my house. Can I give it to someone without them having to pay taxes, simply because I will it to be so?"

Obviously property taxes =/= estate taxes.

if you sell your house to someone while you are living (even for a dollar), the new owner will still have to pay property tax. this is something the original owner had to pay.

the rub is when the gift is posthumous, property taxes AND estate taxes apply. why should gubment get their grubby hands on half the value of the property because the original owner died?

12/3/2009 2:02:17 PM

Quote :

"The government tries to tax you every time money changes hands. Of course the statists think that's a good idea, but anyone that values freedom doesn't."

There's plenty of more for me to read in this thread before I start hitting "post reply", but I figured I'd throw the brakes on right about here.

What, exactly, is "free" about a state where people are wage-slaves? If somebody can't afford food, shelter, education, transportation, and health care, how are they free? It seems to me they have no liberty at all, in fact, seeing as how they have little-to-no resources for pursuing their desires.

Why take such a restricted view of liberty that focuses on property rights?

Quote :

"The state should provide the basic foundation for an individual's right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness."

How much liberty does a wage-slave buried in medical debt have?

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 2:09 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2009 2:08:31 PM

Quote :

"The gov certainly good provide a state owned healthcare system that might work, however in the current system theres no chance of this. And before you bring up the public option, that shit is insurance, not healthcare. Theres a massive difference and lots of people seem to ignore it because they either have something to gain from a fed insurance racket, or they dont know any better."

well provision of insurance, not health care itself (sorry if I was vague) was what i was referring to, but nice try at trying to tag-in my liberal strawman counterpart for your argument there. i can do that too: what sort of universal provision of bootstraps do you people have planned?

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 2:24 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2009 2:23:34 PM

Quote :

"What, exactly, is "free" about a state where people are wage-slaves? If somebody can't afford food, shelter, education, transportation, and health care, how are they free? It seems to me they have no liberty at all, in fact, seeing as how they have little-to-no resources for pursuing their desires."

You're free to do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Plain and simple. Everyone is a wage-slave, if you want to view it like that. Surviving has traditionally been a pretty tough thing. Ten thousand years ago, it was very tough. Now, it's pretty easy. You have to work to live in most circumstances, but no one is forced to work. You're free to do nothing and die on the street, if you like. Freedom doesn't mean you're entitled to anything. It just means you're able to live your life as you want without another individual (or government) coming in and forcing you to do something.

12/3/2009 2:25:29 PM

well said

12/3/2009 2:48:51 PM

While I can tolerate the existence of the estate tax, I disagree with the estate tax on principle and believe the law needs substantial modification to regain some of liberties infringed upon by this tax.

No matter the amount of money passed down no one has the right to take this money away. If the children are seemingly not entitled to the wealth past a certain limit then how can one reasonably suggest the government would be? Especially when acknowledging that the the x hundreds of thousands of dollars would do negligible good based on our trillion dollar deficits and would only serve to further the ethos of wasteful spending that undeniably occurs.

If the tax cannot be eliminated and merely reformed then the tax should be restructured to a certain amount per beneficiary not per estate in whole.

12/3/2009 3:40:47 PM

Quote :

"It just means you're able to live your life as you want without another individual (or government) coming in and forcing you to do something."

government by its very nature is coercive. by using this definition, i can justify the us constitution being anti-freedom. why do i owe anything to anyone? if you reject the social contract to the extent you describe, you must be either some poorly thought-out anarchist or objectivist or something, or you don't really believe in non-coercive society and you just don't know what you're talking about. saying stuff like "people in countries with universal health care are free in spite of their statist totalitarian socialist master government" sounds nice, but you're actually going to have to back up a statement like that with WHY they're free in spite of that or why they are not free and people in Denmark are living in a nicer version of North Korea.

never mind that people were FORCED to pay for your education at a public university.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2009 3:49:29 PM

^^

Quote :

"If the children are seemingly not entitled to the wealth past a certain limit then how can one reasonably suggest the government would be?"

This is THE point. But the far-left loons here and elsewhere have never been able to legitimately answer this question--and they never will. The only thing they have to offer is normative statements that represent nothing more than class warfare and apples-and-oranges horseshit analogies.

12/3/2009 3:57:30 PM

As opposed to offering strawman criticism of left-wing loons and rolly-eyes.

Freedom is me not having to care about you or your kids and also having the right to bomb the crap out of another country.

12/3/2009 4:06:37 PM

Freedom from taxation vs wealth perpetuation. Going to have to side with the latter because you can get exemptions on up to 3.5 million of an inheritance, and thats a ridiculous amount of money. Then again, it just goes into the government's pockets...

Where's the rage over Gift Tax? Same fucking thing.

12/3/2009 4:10:43 PM

^^ Some of you simply love the word "strawman," don't you? Does it make you feel smart? It's not a strawman to point out the fact that leftists are the ones who--overwhelmingly--are pushing the estate tax.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 4:11 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2009 4:11:06 PM

Guys, stop feeding the troll. The house passed the bill to permanently extend the estate tax ban. If the house can pass the bill, it will breeze through the senate (when it is finally voted on).

This will be moot, and the stupid ultra libs can continue to tax the rich in other ways.

12/3/2009 4:36:02 PM

fucking communists.

12/3/2009 4:40:12 PM

hacksaw seems to have his own obsession with using the word "leftists." just sayin'.

12/3/2009 4:45:23 PM

^^^ hahaha

You have your information backwards.

The house voted to indefinitely KEEP the current estate tax of 45% marginal on $3.5 million, not ban the estate tax.

http://www.statesman.com/business/content/shared-gen/ap/Finance_General/US_Estate_Tax.html

12/3/2009 5:05:50 PM

Quote :

"If there were only investment and savings and no spending there would be no economy but anytime theres demand in a capitalism theres an economy. "

uh..where do you think your money goes that you're 'saving' or investing? How do you think the bank can afford to give you interest on that money? Is it because your cash is so pretty to look at in the vault that they figured they'd just add to it from their own pockets?

This is assuming, of course, that your idea of saving and investment isn't saving your money under the mattress and investing in a better nights sleep due to the mattress being firmer.

Quote :

"The person that owned those resources died. It's better for society to see that money flow back into funding things for the public good, in my opinion, then to ensure that a bunch of trust fund babies get to relax without working."

HAHAHAHAHA...this McDanger character is quite amusing.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 5:54 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2009 5:49:11 PM