Quote :

" Until recently, your belongings were passed down from generation to generation"

haha

"until recently" when?

Quote :

"If you split an estate between a bunch of children then take half away, it becomes a nice (and sad) surprise, not life changing. "

Looks like you STILl don't understand how the tax works. Estate tax is paid by the deceased too, your parents wouldn't deal with it, unless one of them were the executor of the estate, in which case the inheritance wouldn't ordinarily be calculated until AFTER the taxes were paid. Not to mention that the exemption level was $3.5 million. How many people was the estate split between for you to be so viscerally upset about it...?

And, if you read the previous page of this thread, it's very common, practically unavoidable, for money not to be taxed multiple times. If you don't like it, then you can go live somewhere where people don't pay as much taxes... Haiti perhaps?

2/10/2010 12:49:23 AM

should I have said take half, then split it? The result is the same.

I'm upset in principle.

Doesn't mean that it is right to tax it repeatedly. Especially the gift and death taxes.

2/10/2010 1:11:18 AM

What I learned from TSB: a 0% tax rate and the repeal of minimum wage would make society a paradise.

2/10/2010 1:37:14 AM

Quote :

"Calculating cost of living is quite simple."

See.. most people want to have more money than just subsistence levels as described by the Cost of Living. They want to enjoy life with their families and friends. So we work harder to get more money. But the gov't, encouraged by the class-warfare mindset, says if you work harder and make more money..we're going to take a bigger percent of it away from you.

And then, at the end of your life after you've already paid huge taxes on a lifetime of earnings, the gov't is going to grab another big chunk of whatever is left that you wanted to leave to your family.

The death tax is an immoral abomination.

2/10/2010 10:53:47 AM

Your first problem is that you're trying to tie being rich with working hard as if it has some sort of relation.

Quote :

"See.. most people want to have more money than just subsistence levels as described by the Cost of Living. They want to enjoy life with their families and friends. "

This can also be calculated. I didn't mean the textbook term for minimum cost of living, I mean the cost of living a comfortable lifestyle whatever that may be can be calculated. I'd say 4 million dollars is plenty for a family to be set to live off of and enjoy theirselves.

The real problem you have with it is, its not enough for them to project their wealth and grow out of control to maintain a royalty status for generations to come without working. Monarchy is over.

2/10/2010 11:38:52 AM

Didn't somewhere recently say that a child will cost a parent 1 million through out their life (including college undergrad tuition) on average?

2/10/2010 11:48:17 AM

Quote :

"Monarchy is over."

Pretty much this. It's not about what's fair. Fuck what's fair. It's about preventing America from becoming a land of nobles and serfs.

2/10/2010 11:50:14 AM

How much will that child cost the government? I personally think we should tax people with families MORE.

2/10/2010 11:50:54 AM

I can't believe people are actually arguing with mambagrl, a very obvious troll.

2/10/2010 1:32:39 PM

Quote :

"The real problem you have with it is, its not enough for them to project their wealth and grow out of control to maintain a royalty status for generations to come without working."

I know I've linked to it in the past, but wealth tends to last only about 3 generations. For all the whining about "royalty" and generations living without having to work, there are many more first and second generation wealthy families than there are fourth and fifth generation.

But even ignoring that, what should it matter whether these people go generations without working? It isn't your money they're living off of. And every wealthy person that doesn't have to work is another job available for someone who does. These people are no more a drain on society or it's resources than any number of the multi generation families on various welfare programs, or for that matter the nearly 33% of Americans who have no or negative taxes.

2/10/2010 1:47:41 PM

I have had negative taxes for the last two years. While I don't mind, and I'm not about to give it back, I do think it is absolutely retarded.
For the record, it is a couple hundred dollars towards the negative taxes.
(grad school and little income FTW/FTL)

[Edited on February 10, 2010 at 1:57 PM. Reason : .]

2/10/2010 1:56:57 PM

Quote :

"It's about preventing America from becoming a land of nobles and serfs."

Whoops...

2/10/2010 3:42:38 PM

^ Exactly. Time for some wealth redistribution.

2/10/2010 4:12:45 PM

The problem is the money rarely goes to the poor. It goes toward failed banks, corporations, wars, bureaucratic costs, pet projects, and a lot more. We could have limited government, and then have some programs in place for those that legitimately need a helping hand. We wouldn't need taxes at 30-40% to do that, though. We can't trust those in government to be responsible with the money.

2/10/2010 4:50:59 PM

Quote :

"We wouldn't need taxes at 30-40% to do that"

Taxes already exceed that. Add up income taxes, sales taxes, property, inheritance, highway use, etc etc etc from federal, state and municpalities and I'll bet taxes exceed 60% of income.

2/10/2010 5:17:19 PM

Quote :

"should I have said take half, then split it? The result is the same. I'm upset in principle. Doesn't mean that it is right to tax it repeatedly. Especially the gift and death taxes. "

Except in reality, it doesn’t come out anywhere near half.

And gift taxes are more to prevent fraud than anything else, it wouldn’t make sense to repeal them. If they did that, then why wouldn’t all employers pay their employees as “gifts” rather than income?

2/10/2010 6:29:21 PM

I love the term "class warfare." It seems to be the only type of warfare that neocons are against.

2/10/2010 8:22:31 PM

Quote :

"Taxes already exceed that. Add up income taxes, sales taxes, property, inheritance, highway use, etc etc etc from federal, state and municpalities and I'll bet taxes exceed 60% of income."

There might be some people who's taxes hit that high, but most people don't. There's no need for inflated numbers here. The fact that most people (at least those that pay taxes) find 30-33% of their money going to taxes should be more than enough to get people outraged as hell.

2/10/2010 10:40:12 PM

Quote :

"I remember this thread. It's the one where CharlesHF is needlessly sly about money on the first page. Then he spills the beans on the third page. And those long, boring beans include an amazing revelation: his grandparents might just maybe could have enough assets to get dinged by the estate tax. JUICY! [Edited on February 9, 2010 at 10:22 PM. Reason : JUICY!]"

Their chances of getting hit by the estate tax anytime soon is quite low, if not 0%.

I am completely against the estate tax, no matter who is or isn't affected by it.

2/10/2010 11:22:23 PM

Quote :

"I'd say 4 million dollars is plenty for a family "

What gives you, or anyone, the right to decide how much is plenty? How does it harm you if someone else is rich?

Quote :

"It's about preventing America from becoming a land of nobles and serfs."

The difference is that in America, serfs can rise up and become a noble. Many millionaires started out poor.

2/10/2010 11:22:39 PM

so why do you find it such a crime that your children can't start out with 100% of your money over 3 million?

Quote :

"How does it harm you if someone else is rich? "

It doesn't but it could be helping someone else. Whats the point of being super rich?

[Edited on February 12, 2010 at 12:43 AM. Reason : theres no way good can come from that]

2/12/2010 12:42:52 AM

I'm sure the money that Bill Gates and Oprah donate is all wasted.

2/12/2010 1:42:39 AM

Quote :

"so why do you find it such a crime that your children can't start out with 100% of your money over 3 million?"

Why do you find it such a crime if they could?

Quote :

"Whats the point of being super rich? [Edited on February 12, 2010 at 12:43 AM. Reason : theres no way good can come from that"

Yes, no good can come out of people being rich and having money to devote their time and resources to things other than working for a living. None whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Newman#Philanthropy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bono#Humanitarian_work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_Foundation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_B._Kroc#Philanthropy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Philanthropy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Rowan#Philanthropy

http://givingback.org/Programs_Services/GivingBack30_2007.html

Never mind that some of the greatest artistic works in history were the results of very rich people paying for them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beethoven#Patronage

Yes, being rich has never brought any good to this world.

2/12/2010 1:36:41 PM

Wouldn't them knowing that they are going to be taxed on that money only further encourage such philanthropy?

2/12/2010 5:14:51 PM

No, it encourages the liquidation of such enterprises so the money can be laundered to the next generation without being taxed. Such charities represent trusts and even if they are not liquidated while the builder is alive, they will be liquidated upon death for tax purposes.

2/12/2010 5:44:55 PM

I know for a fact that's wrong about the Gates Foundation, likely so for the others.

2/12/2010 7:41:48 PM

Quote :

"Never mind that some of the greatest artistic works in history were the results of very rich people paying for them:"

First you say they would give money to charity then you say they would throw it away on art. Which is it? probably both. Should betoven be getting money while people are out there starving or without a doctor?

Artists already make exponentially more than service men and women, police, nurses and teachers.

[Edited on February 13, 2010 at 1:46 AM. Reason : 708]

2/13/2010 1:33:40 AM

Quote :

"docter"

2/13/2010 1:39:57 AM

Quote :

"umm...I AM a teacher"

2/13/2010 12:39:08 PM

Quote :

"Artists already make exponentially more than service men and women, police, nurses and teachers. "

FALSE again. Do you ever get anything right? A small minority make it. The vast majority make very little, hence the phrase "starving artist".

2/13/2010 3:33:32 PM

Then they shouldn't quit their day jobs. The ones that are good make millions.

2/13/2010 4:00:02 PM

^you really are just dumb aren't you. Do you have a mental handicap that we should be made aware of? That might explain some things to us.

The "ones that make millions" would then have most of it taken when they died, and not be able to pass it on to their family.

[Edited on February 13, 2010 at 4:51 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2010 4:50:34 PM

Obvioulsy you have the learning disability because its been repeatedly stated that theres no scenario where "most of it" gets taken away. and its not like their children are entilted to it anyway. Their children didn't make the art.

[Edited on February 13, 2010 at 4:56 PM. Reason : made my post meaner]

2/13/2010 4:55:51 PM

Hmm, 45% is a lot, and when it comes back in 2011, it will be 55%, which is, in fact, MOST.

2/13/2010 4:58:09 PM

55% after the first 3.5 million which only becomes most on estates of over 70 million which the OVERWHELMING majority will be less than.

2/13/2010 5:01:52 PM