An interesting article on the "Death Tax" (estate taxes) - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
An interesting article on the "Death Tax" (estate taxes)
Friday, July 16, 2010 8:27 PM on j-body.org
http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2010/07/16/the-deadly-impact-of-the-death-tax/#more-144678

Just the other night, I happened across CNN, and some talking head was lamenting the the 500 million dollars in lost revenue for the federal government, (when george steinbrener died) because of a sneaky loophole in the Bush tax cuts.

I know this is a topic touched upon in the past, but I'd like to see someone here justify the federal government taking 55% of someone's inheritance. For example: If Steinbrenners had died next year, and his heirs didn't have the 500 million in cash themselves, they would have had to sell the yankees to pay the government.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Re: An interesting article on the "Death Tax" (estate taxes)
Saturday, July 17, 2010 7:33 AM on j-body.org
Extend your argument: ask for someone to justify any form of taxation. Why just single out inheritance tax? It all goes into the same budget and general fund.







Re: An interesting article on the "Death Tax" (estate taxes)
Saturday, July 17, 2010 7:49 AM on j-body.org
shrink the argument: they take 30-50% or mote of your money your entire life, what right do they have to whats left when you die?



Re: An interesting article on the "Death Tax" (estate taxes)
Saturday, July 17, 2010 2:56 PM on j-body.org
What "right" did they have to more of my money when I was alive then?

It's all got to come from somewhere, and if it doesn't come from source 'A', then it will have to come from source 'B'. The sources move around over time, but in the end, the tax man gonna get what the nation needs. It's just a question of from where.





Re: An interesting article on the "Death Tax" (estate taxes)
Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:29 AM on j-body.org
I like how the reporter openly wondered if the governenment would try to make the taxes retroactive to the beginning of 2010.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: An interesting article on the "Death Tax" (estate taxes)
Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:52 AM on j-body.org
retroactive taxes this should be unconstitutional I cannot stand how they feel they have the privilege and right to use the commerce clause to do whatever they want. This is completely unbased and there should be suits as soon as they try a move like this. It is like when they taxed wall street for their legally binding monies. this is government abuse and tyranny at its finest. This is what happen when you elect socialist, progressive and liberal legislators who have no base in reality.



Re: An interesting article on the
Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:04 PM on j-body.org
True Conservative wrote:

shrink the argument: they take 30-50% or mote of your money your entire life, what right do they have to whats left when you die?
More importantly, most of that money was already taxed as income or gain while the person was living. Taxing it on being passed to a beneficiary at such exorbitant levels is criminal.






Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, July 18, 2010 7:54 AM on j-body.org
Defender of My Waterpark wrote:

http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2010/07/16/the-deadly-impact-of-the-death-tax/#more-144678

For example: If Steinbrenners had died next year, and his heirs didn't have the 500 million in cash themselves, they would have had to sell the yankees to pay the government.

.

A couple of things I wished to expound upon: I will reserve feeling sorry for "someone not having $500 million in cash themselves." No, I am not going to feel bad for someone not having half a billion dollars of available funds just laying around.

As to being able to keep the Yankees were there a more significant inheritance tax involved, that's easy: take on investors to raise the cash, or simply borrow against the value of the franchise. That's how business is done...people and/or corporations don't sell assets they wish to keep, they simply use them as collateral to raise funds.

As to death and inheritance taxes: They've existed in some form or another for centuries. Needless to say, the wingnut "patriots" (oh fcuk, that makes me laff so hard every time I see this "patriotic" abuse of our history, lol!) will rail against ANY form of taxation, so their individual arguments against any particular form are thus rendered impotent.

The wingnuts would have us believe that government could somehow exist with much less taxation, even though the single largest consumer of tax income in our federal budget is their precious National Defense. Talk about a hypocritical basis to work from.






Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, July 18, 2010 1:16 PM on j-body.org
^^ the perfect example of the tater audience, that the class warfare politicians are shooting for^^


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, July 18, 2010 1:23 PM on j-body.org
Yeah, that's it. You have two choices in your pre-defined world...us or them. Anyone who says something you don't like is THEM.

Thank god you chose an extreme position, you'd be insufferable in the middle.






Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, July 18, 2010 2:00 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Yeah, that's it. You have two choices in your pre-defined world...us or them. Anyone who says something you don't like is THEM.
Talking about yourself again, Bill? Everyone who disagrees with you gets slapped with a label of extremist, right wingnut, brainless, or whatever insult you happen to have ready to throw out. You can't have a debate with someone without labeling them with a feeble insult. Your failure, and as you can plainly see, you and Goodwrench are the only ones who can't see it.







Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, July 18, 2010 2:18 PM on j-body.org
No, not everyone...just you and your ilk. I will combat extremism wherever I go. The fact that you are so annoyed by seeing me do...this pleases me, for it helps cement my point. Please continue to scream in pain when I poke fun at you and your cronies!

Weak and whiny interlude over, now back to the OP's intention...let's discuss inheritance taxation. Would someone like to make a reasonable contribution to the conversation?





Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, July 18, 2010 2:26 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Defender of My Waterpark wrote:

http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2010/07/16/the-deadly-impact-of-the-death-tax/#more-144678

For example: If Steinbrenners had died next year, and his heirs didn't have the 500 million in cash themselves, they would have had to sell the yankees to pay the government.

.

A couple of things I wished to expound upon: I will reserve feeling sorry for "someone not having $500 million in cash themselves." No, I am not going to feel bad for someone not having half a billion dollars of available funds just laying around.

As to being able to keep the Yankees were there a more significant inheritance tax involved, that's easy: take on investors to raise the cash, or simply borrow against the value of the franchise. That's how business is done...people and/or corporations don't sell assets they wish to keep, they simply use them as collateral to raise funds.

As to death and inheritance taxes: They've existed in some form or another for centuries. Needless to say, the wingnut "patriots" (oh fcuk, that makes me laff so hard every time I see this "patriotic" abuse of our history, lol!) will rail against ANY form of taxation, so their individual arguments against any particular form are thus rendered impotent.

The wingnuts would have us believe that government could somehow exist with much less taxation, even though the single largest consumer of tax income in our federal budget is their precious National Defense. Talk about a hypocritical basis to work from.


So because someone worked so hard to get where they are they do not deserve to pass it along as they see fit? It is a good thing your business will never make much of anything, I would hate to see what would happen when your son found out you said screw it, give everything to the government so they can help the poor.

As far as the defense budget being the highest line item, just wait. Either way, why should our defense not be the largest part of the federal budget? IT IS ALL THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING!



Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, July 18, 2010 2:45 PM on j-body.org
I doubt you know much of anything about my business. You just proved it by being very mistaken about it.

As for my son, he knows my politics quite well, thank you, and also knows that I am not a "champion of the poor". He also respects government, and will not waste his angst railing against whatever taxation rules are in place at the time of my passing.

Again you try to define me along the lines of that which you have been taught, which is the language of the weak and easily controlled, the "with us or against us" ethos. I suggest you do some REAL research into inheritance taxes, and how they actually operate and/or have been implemented over the generations. You'll be very surprised how many of your supposed "heroes" have had a hand in them.

Weak personal attacks aside, do you have anything of real note to add to the discussion, or will you simply settle for saying "all taxes suck", fold up your arms and stamp your foot once again?






Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, July 18, 2010 6:35 PM on j-body.org
Bill,
Your non biased information on the tax. Feel free to read it sometime


the government charged between 1 and 3 % in the years way back when, now it is up to over 50% you tell me that the 3% is needed for book keeping or something, maybe I believe, but what right do they have to half? Give me a convincing non degrading reason and I will step down to your logic.



Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, July 18, 2010 6:50 PM on j-body.org
Break your post down to a conversational, non-confrontational level and we'll talk. You are part of the way there, and I give you credit for trying, but you're still playing the condescending, accusatory game. Some simple re-phrasing and deletion of attempts at inflaming are all it would take.





Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, July 19, 2010 10:59 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:



Again you try to define me along the lines of that which you have been taught, which is the language of the weak and easily controlled, the "with us or against us" ethos.


Take Back the Republican Party wrote:



The wingnuts would have us believe that government could somehow exist with much less taxation, even though the single largest consumer of tax income in our federal budget is their precious National Defense. Talk about a hypocritical basis to work from.


Hypocritical indeed!




Currently #4 in Ecotec Forced Induction horsepower ratings. 505.8 WHP 414WTQ!!!
Currently 6th quickest Ecotec on the .org -12.453 @ 116.45 MPH!!!

Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, July 19, 2010 11:17 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Break your post down to a conversational, non-confrontational level and we'll talk. You are part of the way there, and I give you credit for trying, but you're still playing the condescending, accusatory game. Some simple re-phrasing and deletion of attempts at inflaming are all it would take.


Are you @!#$ nuts!? THIS IS ALL YOU DO!

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

True Conservative wrote:

shrink the argument: they take 30-50% or mote of your money your entire life, what right do they have to whats left when you die?
More importantly, most of that money was already taxed as income or gain while the person was living. Taxing it on being passed to a beneficiary at such exorbitant levels is criminal.


That's pretty much all that needs to be said. There is NO reason, whatsoever, the government deserves 50% of the money you EARNED that has (mostly) already been taxed. Furthermore, most families have a stack of medical bills to deal with from their deceased relative, in addition to funeral costs and whatever other financial obligations the person left behind.

Your loved ones inherit your debt in full, but only inherit a fraction of your wealth.



Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, July 19, 2010 1:20 PM on j-body.org
ThatGuy85 wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Break your post down to a conversational, non-confrontational level and we'll talk. You are part of the way there, and I give you credit for trying, but you're still playing the condescending, accusatory game. Some simple re-phrasing and deletion of attempts at inflaming are all it would take.


Are you @!#$ nuts!? THIS IS ALL YOU DO!

I don't agree...I typically reserve it just for those who deserve it. However, if even if this statement were true, no one's forcing anyone to reply to that which they do not like. This is a choice I make too, and am certainly making in this instance with him. You I reply to more respectfully, because you earn that respect via your behavior. See how neat and tidy that all becomes when you think about it for a minute?

ThatGuy85 wrote:

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

True Conservative wrote:

shrink the argument: they take 30-50% or mote of your money your entire life, what right do they have to whats left when you die?
More importantly, most of that money was already taxed as income or gain while the person was living. Taxing it on being passed to a beneficiary at such exorbitant levels is criminal.


That's pretty much all that needs to be said. There is NO reason, whatsoever, the government deserves 50% of the money you EARNED that has (mostly) already been taxed. Furthermore, most families have a stack of medical bills to deal with from their deceased relative, in addition to funeral costs and whatever other financial obligations the person left behind.

Your loved ones inherit your debt in full, but only inherit a fraction of your wealth.

No one's arguing that the inheritance tax isn't a sh!tty deal. It is what it is however, and that's where getting inflamed about it becomes a total waste of your (and others') time. Once you've been through estate and probate a time or two (as I have), you'll know more about how it all works, and how the laws also vary significantly from state to state. Your comments suggest you may not be completely up to speed on this complex subject, and may be allowing yourself to become inflamed by overly general indignation regarding this issue. As a "for instance": Not all debts are carried forward in every case, and in the instances where debt does exist and must be satisfied, it's a natural balance sheet factor for that money to come out of the estate before what remains is distributed to beneficiaries. The tax is then calculated on the remaining balance.

Taken another way: inheritance taxes are another form of Capital Gains tax. A sudden, significant increase in assets by any other method is also taxed via Capital Gains; an inheritance is a very similar windfall.






Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, July 19, 2010 1:42 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

ThatGuy85 wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Break your post down to a conversational, non-confrontational level and we'll talk. You are part of the way there, and I give you credit for trying, but you're still playing the condescending, accusatory game. Some simple re-phrasing and deletion of attempts at inflaming are all it would take.


Are you @!#$ nuts!? THIS IS ALL YOU DO!

I don't agree...I typically reserve it just for those who deserve it. However, if even if this statement were true, no one's forcing anyone to reply to that which they do not like. This is a choice I make too, and am certainly making in this instance with him. You I reply to more respectfully, because you earn that respect via your behavior. See how neat and tidy that all becomes when you think about it for a minute?


Hm, I'd say my comment is MOSTLY correct. Seeing as how 90(ish)% of the posts you make on this board are in some way debating (if you could call it that) with RWE and Scott. And of that 90%, every post that I have read was condescending in nature, and sometimes just outright cocky. I seem to remember you saying something about wishing the fish in the JBO barrel were more alive when you took aim. Which was actually kinda funny, but c'mon..

Neither here nor there however..

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:


ThatGuy85 wrote:

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

True Conservative wrote:

shrink the argument: they take 30-50% or mote of your money your entire life, what right do they have to whats left when you die?
More importantly, most of that money was already taxed as income or gain while the person was living. Taxing it on being passed to a beneficiary at such exorbitant levels is criminal.


That's pretty much all that needs to be said. There is NO reason, whatsoever, the government deserves 50% of the money you EARNED that has (mostly) already been taxed. Furthermore, most families have a stack of medical bills to deal with from their deceased relative, in addition to funeral costs and whatever other financial obligations the person left behind.

Your loved ones inherit your debt in full, but only inherit a fraction of your wealth.

No one's arguing that the inheritance tax isn't a sh!tty deal. It is what it is however, and that's where getting inflamed about it becomes a total waste of your (and others') time. Once you've been through estate and probate a time or two (as I have), you'll know more about how it all works, and how the laws also vary significantly from state to state. Your comments suggest you may not be completely up to speed on this complex subject, and may be allowing yourself to become inflamed by overly general indignation regarding this issue. As a "for instance": Not all debts are carried forward in every case, and in the instances where debt does exist and must be satisfied, it's a natural balance sheet factor for that money to come out of the estate before what remains is distributed to beneficiaries. The tax is then calculated on the remaining balance.

Taken another way: inheritance taxes are another form of Capital Gains tax. A sudden, significant increase in assets by any other method is also taxed via Capital Gains; an inheritance is a very similar windfall.


You're correct on this though. Admittedly I don't know the specific details of this topic, and that for instance some debts are not transferred, but given your example if the deceased relative literally has NO estate, no home, living in a nursing home, nothing of value but assloads of bills, then they pretty much have to transfer that debt to the descendants, yes?

The "It is what it is" attitude with this kind of ridiculous tax doesn't solve anything however. Ranting on a car forum doesn't do much either admittedly, but I'm bored and I have 10 minutes to kill before I go home.

I think getting complacent and just saying "Pass the lube" when the govt get's horny for cash is almost worse than the act itself. Pass the rape whistle.



Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, July 19, 2010 1:43 PM on j-body.org
Roofy wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:


Again you try to define me along the lines of that which you have been taught, which is the language of the weak and easily controlled, the "with us or against us" ethos.

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:


The wingnuts would have us believe that government could somehow exist with much less taxation, even though the single largest consumer of tax income in our federal budget is their precious National Defense. Talk about a hypocritical basis to work from.

Hypocritical indeed!

Man you got THAT right. Trying to portray me as a leftist simply because I don't subscribe to ALL their desperately-held tenets is a Wingnut standard, and it's slowly poisoning public sentiment where the right wing is concerned. There are so many more than two sides to today's political landscape.

Don't even get me STARTED on the disrespectful hijacking of our founding fathers as some kind of twisted right-wing "rallying point". That's when the wingnut agenda goes right over the edge, and insults many more people than it inspires.






Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, July 19, 2010 1:44 PM on j-body.org
True Conservative wrote:

Your non biased information on the tax. Feel free to read it sometime.
Quote:

Proponents have frequently advocated that these taxes are effective tools for preventing the concentration of wealth
This would be an example of the socialist mindset. The government needs to take from some because they have too much. However, the government can never have too much.

Quote:

Taken another way: inheritance taxes are another form of Capital Gains tax. A sudden, significant increase in assets by any other method is also taxed via Capital Gains; an inheritance is a very similar windfall.
True, and I understand this logic, but compare the rates of the two, and the inheritance tax is exorbitant. Not to mention the fact that the government does not simply have the right to take a huge amount of your money because you just got a bunch of it. At worst, it should be taxed no higher than the income tax would be.






Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, July 19, 2010 2:07 PM on j-body.org
ThatGuy85 wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

ThatGuy85 wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Break your post down to a conversational, non-confrontational level and we'll talk. You are part of the way there, and I give you credit for trying, but you're still playing the condescending, accusatory game. Some simple re-phrasing and deletion of attempts at inflaming are all it would take.


Are you @!#$ nuts!? THIS IS ALL YOU DO!

I don't agree...I typically reserve it just for those who deserve it. However, if even if this statement were true, no one's forcing anyone to reply to that which they do not like. This is a choice I make too, and am certainly making in this instance with him. You I reply to more respectfully, because you earn that respect via your behavior. See how neat and tidy that all becomes when you think about it for a minute?


Hm, I'd say my comment is MOSTLY correct. Seeing as how 90(ish)% of the posts you make on this board are in some way debating (if you could call it that) with RWE and Scott. And of that 90%, every post that I have read was condescending in nature, and sometimes just outright cocky. I seem to remember you saying something about wishing the fish in the JBO barrel were more alive when you took aim. Which was actually kinda funny, but c'mon..

Neither here nor there however..

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:


ThatGuy85 wrote:

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

True Conservative wrote:

shrink the argument: they take 30-50% or mote of your money your entire life, what right do they have to whats left when you die?
More importantly, most of that money was already taxed as income or gain while the person was living. Taxing it on being passed to a beneficiary at such exorbitant levels is criminal.


That's pretty much all that needs to be said. There is NO reason, whatsoever, the government deserves 50% of the money you EARNED that has (mostly) already been taxed. Furthermore, most families have a stack of medical bills to deal with from their deceased relative, in addition to funeral costs and whatever other financial obligations the person left behind.

Your loved ones inherit your debt in full, but only inherit a fraction of your wealth.

No one's arguing that the inheritance tax isn't a sh!tty deal. It is what it is however, and that's where getting inflamed about it becomes a total waste of your (and others') time. Once you've been through estate and probate a time or two (as I have), you'll know more about how it all works, and how the laws also vary significantly from state to state. Your comments suggest you may not be completely up to speed on this complex subject, and may be allowing yourself to become inflamed by overly general indignation regarding this issue. As a "for instance": Not all debts are carried forward in every case, and in the instances where debt does exist and must be satisfied, it's a natural balance sheet factor for that money to come out of the estate before what remains is distributed to beneficiaries. The tax is then calculated on the remaining balance.

Taken another way: inheritance taxes are another form of Capital Gains tax. A sudden, significant increase in assets by any other method is also taxed via Capital Gains; an inheritance is a very similar windfall.


You're correct on this though. Admittedly I don't know the specific details of this topic, and that for instance some debts are not transferred, but given your example if the deceased relative literally has NO estate, no home, living in a nursing home, nothing of value but assloads of bills, then they pretty much have to transfer that debt to the descendants, yes?

The "It is what it is" attitude with this kind of ridiculous tax doesn't solve anything however. Ranting on a car forum doesn't do much either admittedly, but I'm bored and I have 10 minutes to kill before I go home.

I think getting complacent and just saying "Pass the lube" when the govt get's horny for cash is almost worse than the act itself. Pass the rape whistle.


I can't speak to the scenario you present of the "negative" estate, but unless I am mistaken, a person's debts are not passed along to descendants. AFAIK, if there is no estate value, the deceased's debts are written off as uncollectable, not transferred to the descendants. An exception may be spouses, for in the eyes of the law financially, husband and wife are viewed as one, but I have no real knowledge of this aspect. But of course, spouses are NOT descendants, and you asked of descendants.

I agree that saying "it is what it is" can sound like complacency, but it's really not, at least not in my usage. It is a form of acceptance that involves improving one's own quality of life by not wasting angst on things one cannot change. Accepting such things is not akin to subscribing to them or agreeing with them; it is merely deciding that in a given day, one has enough to deal with on one's own, and that life is too short and happiness too precious to give any up for things beyond one's sphere of control or immediate concern.

For instance, and this is just one example: I don't use my time to fret over social problems in Somalia. Yes, I know it's a form of hell on earth. Sure, I'd like it to stop. Do I spend time beating that drum? I would be stealing good, positive time from myself and my loved ones if I did so, and that's just not in my repertoire. This does not automatically infer that I support Somalian murder and anarchy. It just means I am defining my world and my efforts by those things I can make a real difference in, and the rest is just not on my radar.

So, one could call my efforts here a form of militant pragmatism. I enjoy rubbing people's noses in their own useless frustrations, in the hope of showing them they are wasting their quality time. It's a form of release, and every now and then, my message actually gets through. I just am not afraid to ruffle some feathers to get that message across. In today's world, sometimes that's the only way to make a difference. And if not, it's just damned good fun!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, July 19, 2010 2:08 PM



Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, July 19, 2010 3:31 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

It is a form of acceptance that involves improving one's own quality of life by not wasting angst on things one cannot change.


Not at all. I'm not sure what it is exactly, but it has something to do with a passifist/ submissive mentality.

And it is something that can be changed. We have elected representatives, and although they of both aisles, are loathe to give up that kind of revenue, the change can still be accomplished. Simply saying stuff like "...things one cannot change".... well, a dickless talking head might think thats all he can do, but I believe in the power of the American people to bring about change....not the politicians bringing change....the people.

Dickless talking heads would also read the above statements, and retort "You baseless namecalling simply proves that your ideas are without merit, and I win yet again...righwingnuts, teabaggers etc."

.




“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, July 19, 2010 6:51 PM on j-body.org
If the inheritance tax does make a reappearance, it will be because other forms of revenue have been drying up due to economic stress. I don't think any amount of activism can change these events. That's why I don't see much to be gained in railing against it.

Sure, being angry about it may make you feel temporarily relieved, and perhaps even justified to heap abuse on the political enemy of your choice, but will any real change be realized? I doubt it.

These are dire times for tax revenue, folks. Cards will be played that you don't like. The blame is amazingly hard to place, for the domino effects of many different events and actions are in flux now. I say, Blame Canada!











Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search