An interesting article on the "Death Tax" (estate taxes) - Page 2 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:54 PM on j-body.org
ThatGuy85 wrote:

then they pretty much have to transfer that debt to the descendants, yes?
No, debt can be written off, kinda like filing bankruptcy for the deceased. A friend's father recently passed, and he had the option to cover the debts to retain the assets (cars, house, etc), or to let them go. The debts don't even come out of life insurance payments. (If you want your decendants to be set, take out multiple mortgages and use some of the $$$ to pay for hefty life insurance policies)
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

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.
From what I recall, capital gains tax is pretty close to 50%. When I started reading this thread, I immediately drew a relationship between the inheritance tax and the capital gains tax because of the similarity in acquisition type and tax rate specified...
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

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.
Since we all love slippery-slope argumnts here in the War Forum, how about this:
We all know that plenty of politicians can be effectively "bought". Extreme concentration of wealth could lead to something more similar to a dictatorship than a Republic.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster

Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, July 20, 2010 4:04 PM on j-body.org
Capital gains is currently 20%.





Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:03 PM on j-body.org
To the extent that inheritance taxes may be reinstated on a more severe level as a way to supplant other lost forms of income, it's all rather moot anyway.

In my perception, the individuals who made BIG bank on the looting of America via the real estate disaster, as well as outsourcing, will be forced to give some of it back to the public this way. The old saying holds true...only two things are inevitable, death and taxes. In this case, we get a double-dip! It may be the only remaining way to get the money back that these bigwigs and robber barons ripped from the general populace.

Yeah, I am majorly pissed at them. The entire USA was the victim of one big Ponzi scheme in both cases (real estate and outsourcing) and the money went SOMEWHERE. They deserve no mercy from me.






Re: An interesting article on the
Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:01 PM on j-body.org
the big ponzi scheme is going on in congress. the majority of these *robber barons* did nothing illegal, this is just stirring up class warfare and us versus them mentality. Either way when was teh last time a poor person offered you a job ya know? we need to allow people to accumulate wealth, that was how our country was built.



Re: An interesting article on the
Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:44 PM on j-body.org
True Conservative wrote:

The majority of these *robber barons* did nothing illegal.
Nor did slave owners in the South.

Legalized theft is still theft. Politicians receiving "donations" are doing nothing illegal either - but we both know a bribe by any other name is still a bribe.

I should also note that Joseph Stalin indirectly murdered millions yet never did anything illegal - seeing as how he made the laws. But its no biggie... its legal dude!

My point being - Legality and morality are not interchangeable. I'm not necessarily responding to the estate tax, just your argument.





Re: An interesting article on the
Friday, July 23, 2010 8:29 AM on j-body.org
bk3k wrote:

True Conservative wrote:

The majority of these *robber barons* did nothing illegal.
Nor did slave owners in the South.

Legalized theft is still theft. Politicians receiving "donations" are doing nothing illegal either - but we both know a bribe by any other name is still a bribe.

I should also note that Joseph Stalin indirectly murdered millions yet never did anything illegal - seeing as how he made the laws. But its no biggie... its legal dude!

My point being - Legality and morality are not interchangeable. I'm not necessarily responding to the estate tax, just your argument.[/quote

I think maybe you are taking things out of context. No one would say slavery was a good thing. in fact teh founders wanted to do away with it, and made needed preparations to do so. That point is not even worth debating, as it holds no relevance to the topic.

Josef Stalin killing people in a communist totalitarian government also holds no water, he set the laws so it was not illegal, there again not in context of the point I made.

There is a difference between legal and moral. You also have to think about the fact that the same body that is charging the estate tax is also very much responsible for the lack of american manufacturing being competitive with the rest of the world through the highest corporate taxes you could ever imagine. If they had to outsource to remain competitive because the cost of business was too high here, that is not a breach in morality by business, but rather by governance.



Re: An interesting article on the
Friday, July 23, 2010 10:47 AM on j-body.org
You know, Estate taxes are not a new phenomenon; they date back almost three thousand years. As early as 700 B.C., there appears to have been a 10 percent tax on the transfer of property at death in Egypt. In the first century A.D., Augustus Caesar imposed a tax on successions and legacies to all but close relatives.
Transfer taxes during the Middle Ages grew out of the fact that the sovereign or the state owned all assets. Although the king owned all real property in feudal England, he would grant its use to certain individuals during their lifetimes. When they died, the king would let the estate retain the property upon payment of an estate tax.

In the United States, the tradition of taxing assets at death began with the Stamp Act of 1797. While the first Stamp Act on tea helped precipitate the Revolutionary War, the second was far less dramatic. Revenues from requiring a federal stamp on wills in probate were used to pay off debts incurred during the undeclared naval war with France in 1794. Congress repealed the Stamp Act in 1802.
That set a pattern for the next hundred years or so in which estate taxes were used as a sporadic, and temporary, way to finance wars. When hostilities ceased, the tax was repealed.
To help finance the Civil War, the Tax Act of 1862 imposed a federal inheritance tax. As costs mounted, the Congress increased the inheritance tax rates and added a succession tax in 1864. When the need for added revenue subsided after the war, the inheritance tax was repealed in 1870.
In 1874, a taxpayer challenged the legality of the Civil War estate taxes, arguing they were direct taxes that, under the Constitution, must be apportioned among the states according to the census. The Supreme Court disagreed saying that direct taxes pertained to capitation taxes and taxes on land, houses, and other permanent real estate.

Another legal decision bearing on, but not directly related to, estate taxes concerned the Income Tax Act of 1894, which included gifts and inheritances as income subject to tax. The Supreme Court struck down the whole bill because the tax was imposed on, among other things, real estate gains and, therefore, was considered a direct tax. This decision is particularly notable because it set the stage for the Sixteenth Amendment that allows the federal government great latitude in the types of taxes it can collect.




THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, July 26, 2010 4:28 PM on j-body.org
^^^^ Exactly.

However, my good Wrench, we must never underestimate the power of the Extreme Right to rattle its loyal followers' cages with issues that lack substantive relevance or actual importance. No hot button is too insignificant to stomp on until the good peasants scream in the pain and glee of collective "patriotic" indignation.






Re: An interesting article on the
Monday, July 26, 2010 7:27 PM on j-body.org
In 2009 death tax was 45% off the estate value. Next year it jumps to 55%. Would either of you pooders care to opine how much is too much?

.


“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
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:31 AM on j-body.org
I love how in the middle of one of the worst recessions in our history, some consider it being extreme to point out a tax increase that is coming up because "it's nothing new". This kind of thinking is what got us where we are right now, where half the country was sweet-talked into thinking anyone was better than who we had.






Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 4:50 AM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

I love how in the middle of one of the worst recessions in our history, some consider it being extreme to point out a tax increase that is coming up because "it's nothing new". This kind of thinking is what got us where we are right now, where half the country was sweet-talked into thinking anyone was better than who we had.
I find it funny that during a recession where people are screaming about Government running deficits that those same people are appalled at the concept of deducing the deficit through PAYING TAXES. Yes, I called this years ago - that whoever the next president was after Bush's drunken spending spree - while lowering taxes aka not paying for the spending - that the next president(who most of us figured would be guaranteed a Democrat out of reflex to Bush) would have to raise taxes somewhere to pay for it. Bush gets the votes for irresponsible financial policy and the next president gets flak for paying the past-due interest accumulating bills. So now you guys can come in saying - TOLD YOU SO!! Well no @!#$.

Clearly I was mistaken after all.

Even if Bush's spending wasn't any less - we'd be in MUCH better shape WITHOUT his mostly-aimed-at-the-top tax cut in the first place. This is the part where you say his tax cuts brought us economic growth and thus more tax income. But as you know, the growth the whole time of his presidency was bubble growth not real growth. The bubble started off of course, under Clinton. But you cannot blame Clinton for false growth through the Bush years and simultaneously credit Bush for growth you KNOW is false (because you cannot blame Clinton if you believe the growth as real). The only real result of those cuts was that he outrageous government spending was done on high interest credit instead of on sustainable revenue.

Now you can reply that instead of taxes, we need to reduce spending(and I'll momentarily spare you the difficult question of WHAT specific spending to cut). I'd almost agree. In a time of economic prosperity, we could and should cut spending. Indeed, that can be a useful tool to combat inflation(by the same token - look how bad our inflation has been during the last administration). Too much Government spending directly causes inflation. But cutting total Government spending in a time of recession... very bad idea.

Every dollar the government cuts back on now(aside from the sting felt in whatever program is cut) is a dollar not going to some company somewhere that was providing some service to the Government and/or American people. That companiy has less income to spend/invest in itself. Less need for labor and less money to pay it anyways. The newly unemployed (or even under-employeed) people now aren't spending the money they don't have. They aren't paying their mortgage nor other bills either. The economy suffers more and so do tax revenues... so much for savings. Down the spiral we go.

Not all spending is equal of course, you do have to do it intelligently and I'm not necessarily saying our money is being spent in the most effective way, but its the concept I'm spelling out for you. Reducing the Government is a worthwhile goal - but not at a tragically bad time to do so. Our Government - like it or not - is the largest consumer in the world. What you are calling for... is for the largest consumer to stop spending in a recession. Think about it. BAD IDEA.

Look - anyone who likes paying taxes is INSANE. But it is a necessary evil. The disagreement should not be about the IF the Government is spending money at this time. It should be about ON WHAT the government is spending money on. On what, we may still disagree. But that is only a difference of details.






Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:58 AM on j-body.org
bk3k, you're way off in almost every point you just made, and I'll be happy to prove it later. (I don't have all the links and data on my phone to show you the numbers). Tax revenue has been proven to increase when taxes are lowered. Raising taxes to reduce the deficit is a tired argument. The numbers don't support it.

Second, "'Bush's drunken spending spree" is nothing compared to the last 18 months. If you even attempt at arguing that point, it's laughable. The bottom line is that this is a tax-and-spend administration, and Congress. Tax-and spend kills the econonomy. Also, it should be noted that the last budget before the Democrats controlled Congress, had less than a $200B deficit. For the last 4 years, we have had Democrat spending. Bush was foolish for signing the budgets instead of pushing back, but I'm seriously sick of the feeble tactics of blaming Bush.

Last, we did not have economic growth because of the housing bubble. However, as with any major segment of the economy, the crash was severe enough to cause all industries to suffer. If the economy was growing during Bush's term because of Clinton, we wouldn't have had a recession from 2000-2003 that wasn't turned around until those "tax cuts for the rich" were passed in 2003, which by the way, were not "his mostly-aimed-at-the-top". Tell that to any low-middle income family who is going to lose their $1,000 per child tax credit next year. Who do you think is going to be impacted more, the people making $250K that are going to pay a couple of points more in taxes, or the middle class family who is going to lose $2-3,000 in tax credits.







Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:22 AM on j-body.org





 
Subject: Civics 101 ...

 
The  Washington  Post babbled again recently about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough,...... a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson.    
 
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
 
For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets. 
 
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:    (below)

 

  
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets.  That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
 
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
 
 


“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
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:51 AM on j-body.org
So, since the common man has been gutted of money by the real estate crimes and outsourcing, where does the right wing feel the money needed to plug the gaps will come from?

Hmmm?






Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:23 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

So, since the common man has been gutted of money by the real estate crimes and outsourcing, where does the right wing feel the money needed to plug the gaps will come from?

Hmmm?
You already know the answer:
"tax cuts for small businesses, which will create jobs"
Once the "common man" has a stable job, he will have money again.

Back on topic, I think that if capital gains is only at 20%, there is no reason estate tax should be any higher.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:03 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

So, since the common man has been gutted of money by the real estate crimes and outsourcing, where does the right wing feel the money needed to plug the gaps will come from?

Hmmm?
I'll ask you a counter question:

Next year, when nearly 30 million already suffering small business owners see a hike in their tax rates, where are they going to come up with the money to pay the government? When the do, what do you expect the result to be? How will this help the economy?

Quite simply, the economy is top priority, budget is second priority. However, taking care of one in the most effective way will take care of the other, as long as the wasteful spending is stopped.







Re: An interesting article on the
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:24 AM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

So, since the common man has been gutted of money by the real estate crimes and outsourcing, where does the right wing feel the money needed to plug the gaps will come from?

Hmmm?
I'll ask you a counter question:

Next year, when nearly 30 million already suffering small business owners see a hike in their tax rates, where are they going to come up with the money to pay the government? When the do, what do you expect the result to be? How will this help the economy?

Quite simply, the economy is top priority, budget is second priority. However, taking care of one in the most effective way will take care of the other, as long as the wasteful spending is stopped.

I don't think anyone is denying that a tax hike is unpleasant. I don't actually see that line of reasoning as an "argument"...it's more a statement of the obvious than anything.

We're out of money. Money must come from somewhere. Yeah, sure it sucks that the current generation gets to carry the burden, but wishful thinking about "increasing efficiency" is a waste of oxygen. The time to tune-up the machine is long past...its engine is laying in pieces on the ground. This is overhaul time.

We need hard funds. To me, it makes sense to land at least part of that burden (in the form of an increased inheritance tax) on those most likely to have benefited so much; those who now hold the cash they gained from selling the nation up the river. It's nigh poetic, really. Major capital gains during one's lifetime paid for by the selling out of America? Let's just take some of that and plow it right back into the nation to help heal the wounds acquiring that wealth caused. Yeah, sure...some hard working folks will get caught in this net too, but there will be tiering and percentages to prevent the family of the average-guy-done-good from being flayed wide open when he dies.

Always remember: Inheritance taxes primarily impact the very wealthy; the bulk of the income they produce comes from the wealthy minority who represent the very highest brackets of income and estate value, not the hardworking independent who managed to acquire some property in his life.




Re: An interesting article on the
Saturday, July 31, 2010 12:29 PM on j-body.org
Defender of My Waterpark wrote:

In 2009 death tax was 45% off the estate value. Next year it jumps to 55%. Would either of you pooders care to opine how much is too much?

Enough to cover our supposed "national interest expansion." You want security for your business abroad, pay for it. I mean, you like to go to wars with a gung-ho attitude and expand business, or pirate a country's commodity and still get a free ride out of it? Or would you rather put it on China's credit? But someone will eventually have to pay for it, you decide if it is you or the rich.

True Conservative wrote:

the big ponzi scheme is going on in congress. the majority of these *robber barons* did nothing illegal, this is just stirring up class warfare and us versus them mentality. Either way when was teh last time a poor person offered you a job ya know? we need to allow people to accumulate wealth, that was how our country was built.

Sorry to inform you, but this country was build on entrepreneurship, not when will the rich puts a "Help Wanted" sign up to help me out. And naturally being that there are more poor folks than rich folks in this society, the rich population do not carry enough individuals to create a demand and stimulate the economy as large as ours. No demand or sales for X buisness, why hire more?




THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, August 01, 2010 1:51 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Sorry to inform you, but this country was build on entrepreneurship, not when will the rich puts a "Help Wanted" sign up to help me out. And naturally being that there are more poor folks than rich folks in this society, the rich population do not carry enough individuals to create a demand and stimulate the economy as large as ours. No demand or sales for X buisness, why hire more?
Yes, this country was built on entrepreneurship, and the economic environment we are in is not encouraging that entrepreneurship, it's discouraging it. Also, entrepreneurs need investors. Who are the investors? The rich. If the rich aren't comfortable with the economic policies of the government, they will be less enticed to invest, rather than sit on their money. Thus, even entrepreneurs who are looking to do something have a harder time finding investors. Once again, as of January 1st of next year, if Congress does nothing, taxes are higher. Also, consider the fact that approximately 30 million small businesses out there are pass-through entities, meaning a type of business (their are multiple) where the profits are claimed as the owner[s] individual income. This means that the rates increasing in the higher brackets are effecting the small businesses who are of the size to be hiring employees. Having a 3-5 point bump the taxes they pay will do nothing but stifle their growth, and their willingness to expand and/or hire more workers. Add to that the uncertainty of other tax increases coming (energy tax, VAT tax), and you are looking at a climate where the rich are not willing to take the risk and invest, and businesses are not willing to take the risk of hiring and/or expanding.






Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, August 01, 2010 2:12 PM on j-body.org
The money will come from somewhere.






Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, August 01, 2010 5:27 PM on j-body.org
Bull@!#$ Bill. Pure bull@!#$. If your take on life, is whatever will be will be, then just sit on your couch and eat cheetos.



.


“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, August 01, 2010 5:45 PM on j-body.org
Not so simple as that, my man. Pragmatism is so much more.

But back on point...with the taxpayer base (and its resultant revenue for the US Treasury) gutted from unemployment, low-paying jobs and real estate nightmares, what do you see as alternative sources of revenue for the US of A at this time?





Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, August 01, 2010 6:01 PM on j-body.org
Bill, do you understand the concept of lowering taxes to encourage economic activity, thereby growing the tax base, which ultimately leads to higher tax revenues? It's proven to work. To say that since we have a smaller tax base so we need to raise taxes is short-term thinking, which will be shooting ourselves in the foot. If you just look at it as trying to get closer to a balanced budget, there is no way to do it without expanding the tax base, and you're not going to do that by increasing taxes in a recession.






Re: An interesting article on the
Sunday, August 01, 2010 6:22 PM on j-body.org
If Superstore X experiences a downturn of revenue, would it be better to 1) raise the prices on all of its goods, hoping the customers don't notice OR 2) lower the prices on all of its goods and tell everyone in town?

1) You may see an immediate spike in profit, but before long, the customer will wise up and either shop elsewhere, or just sit on their money. Good for short term, bad for long term.

2) You lower your profit margin, but expand your customer base. Customers will want to spend their money at the place with the best prices.

It makes so much sense, that the only reason you cannot see it, is because of your myopic view of your own colon.

.




“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, August 01, 2010 6:51 PM on j-body.org
Its bull@!#$ and should be repealed and anyone who doesn't feel that way should be voted out of office



1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85





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

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search