View Poll Results: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

Voters
153. You may not vote on this poll
  • There should be no inheritance tax of any amount of money or assets.

    84 54.90%
  • The first 5 million dollars should be exempt. After that the tax rate should be 35%.

    21 13.73%
  • The first 5 million dollars should be exempt. After that the tax rate should be 50%.

    12 7.84%
  • The first 1 million should be exempt. After that the rate should be 50%.

    19 12.42%
  • No exempt amount. Tax at 35% from the get-go.

    9 5.88%
  • No exempt amount. Tax at 50% from the get-go.

    1 0.65%
  • Abolish all inheritance. In other words, tax 100%.

    7 4.58%
Page 100 of 195 FirstFirst ... 50909899100101102110150 ... LastLast
Results 991 to 1,000 of 1947

Thread: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

  1. #991
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Denial is not just a river in Egypt and your continuing to harp on something which has been thoroughly discredited, crushed and flushed is proof of it.
    You haven't discredited anything, all you have done is presented an appeal to authority. You haven't even satisfactorily countered how wealth based taxation and taxation on earnings isn't discrimination. Later.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #992
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,077

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    Why should corporations pay taxes at all? They're not people and they don't vote. They're nothing but giant machines that turn money into (hopefully) more money. Only problem with corporations is that they're misappropriating shareholder funds to inappropriately involve themselves in the political process.
    well that last is the real bit, isn't it. since (as you point out) corporations exist to turn money into more money, they have to take account of the fact that investing in rent-seeking is more profitable with a federal government the size and scope of our own than most other forms of investment.

  3. #993
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,077

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    You haven't discredited anything, all you have done is presented an appeal to authority. You haven't even satisfactorily countered how wealth based taxation and taxation on earnings isn't discrimination. Later.
    that's kind of the M.O. Ignore inconveniences, declare victory, repeat until opponent tires.

  4. #994
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    You haven't discredited anything, all you have done is presented an appeal to authority. You haven't even satisfactorily countered how wealth based taxation and taxation on earnings isn't discrimination. Later.
    Appeal to Authority? Just like your claim about certain rights being in the Constitution when it was actually a statement in the Declaration of Independence, I suspect you do not know what you are talking about. care to explain in detail?

    Do you read the posts I and others make here responding to your ideas? It was all there for you piece by piece, point by point and argument by argument. Just go back and read.

    This was post 908 yesterday - which you responded to by the way but chose to ignore 99% of in favor of attacking one sentence which others have since thoroughly discredited you on. So here it is, the legal refutation of your silly 14th Amendment argument

    The equal protection clause was never intended to apply to taxes. Even the Tax Protester FAQ (Tax Protester FAQ) doesn't need to demolish these arguments because nobody ever seems to try to make an equal protection case. In a full century it has not come up and only now seems a rather desperate attempt to come up with something - anything - no matter how weak or how hollow simply because some folks want to protect the wealth of the rich.

    The Minnesota House research department (http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd...s/clsstxep.htm) has this to say:
    Most tax laws are subject to “rational basis” review under the Equal Protection Clause; to be constitutional they must simply have a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose.

    The Equal Protection Clause was initially adopted primarily to limit or prohibit racial discrimination by the states. The courts have also applied it to proscribe other forms of invidious discrimination (e.g., based on religion, ethnicity, etc.). However, legislation often necessarily involves “discrimination” in the broader sense that groups of individuals or businesses are treated differently based on particular characteristics (e.g., amounts of income, type of business, uses of property, etc.) that in the abstract are unobjectionable. The clause was not intended to restrict legislation that imposed different tax or regulatory rules, for example, on retailers than on manufacturers. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has developed a stricter standard of review for laws that create “suspect classifications” or deprive someone of a “fundamental right” as a compared with more benign legislative classifications. The lines between the two categories (perhaps inevitably) blur at the edges. At times the Court has explicitly talked about a middle level of review.

    Very few tax statutes have been struck down under the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has generally given states wide latitude to fashion tax classifications, perhaps more than in any other area of law. See San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1, 41 (1973), where the Court noted: “[T]hat in taxation, even more than in other fields, legislatures possess the greatest freedom in classification.”
    You also need to remember that the income tax amendment was passed at the height of the Progressive movement, which called for a progressive tax system (a coincidence using two different meanings of the word). Legislative intent again comes into play. If there had been any thought that unequal tax rates on income would have violated any constitutional principles the amendment could have specifically said so. It didn't then, and not even tax cranks have tried to make the case in the near 100 years since.

    In addition, the line of argument of LaMid is based on a false premise, in that the higher tax rate is not on rich people, as asserted, but on higher income. Said higher income is potentially attainable by any person, and the tax is not on the person per se but on the income itself. Several excellent posts yesterday by Cardinal Fang emphasized this and gave us the language on this point clearly and undeniably. The tax is upon individual incomes - NOT on a class or group of people.

    And the class or group of people under discussion - the very wealthy who pay the top rate - is not a stable or permanent class of people regardless. They change from year to year as peoples individual incomes rise and fall. As pointed out, a person can indeed be wealthy but if they have little or no income in any given year, they pay no federal income tax or a very small one at a low rate. An average earner who consistently pays at a low rate or perhaps does not pay at all can have one great year and find themselves paying at the top rate even though they certainly are not wealthy or rich.

    And the wealthy - who ever they may be or how one defines them - are certainly NOT a protected class like others are - race, gender, ethnicity, religion.

    The argument is a non-starter. And the appeal is to reality - not authority.
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-13-12 at 08:55 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  5. #995
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    that's kind of the M.O. Ignore inconveniences, declare victory, repeat until opponent tires.
    Perhaps you joined the discussion late and did not read the last 32 hours of posts? Otherwise, there is no reason at all to take that sort of position.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  6. #996
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,947

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Of course there are types of risk. Nobody is taking issue with that. I simply do not want the government subsidizing investment risk with discriminatory and preferential tax rates while it ignores other areas of risk.
    Then I think we might be in agreement. My biggest problem with your statements is that you lump all income as the same when they are not. Three different things being treated the same do es not make them the same. Are we agreed on that?

    Foolish!?!?!?!? It is foolish to uphold your end of the contract for thirty or more years and then expect the other party to uphold their end of the same contract? That in your judgment is foolish? Hardly. I was under the impression, perhaps a false one, that libertarians placed great worth on contracts. Was I mislead?
    The fulfillment of a contract by both sides is rather dependent upon a) the continued existence of either party, and b) the ability of either party to fulfill the contract. If the company goes under and no longer exists then where is that pension money supposed to come from? Pensions, unlike IRA's, are paid out of a company's income. No income means no pension payments. Secondly if the money is not there, well then the money is not there.

    As far as who shall be paid the retiree or the current worker ..... one should not take on new contractual burdens until one satisfies and honors the contractual burdens they have already negotiated and to which the other party has satisfied and completed their obligation to you.
    Downward cycle of destruction. The pension hold will lose out either way. If the company cannot take on new employees that are required to generate the funds for the pension then the pension won't get paid anyway. BTW just in case it wasn't clear, I am referring to current worker pay vs pension payouts, not about newer workers getting pension promises as well.



    Skin color is something that one is born with and is a permanent condition of life (save Michael Jackson and rare exceptions).
    Ethnicity is the same.
    Gender is the same.
    While religion can be changed, and many do change that, it is a protected right under the First Amendment.

    Income is not like any of those. It is not something you are born with. It is not something which is permanent and you can do nothing about. It is not something which is even stable or a characteristic from year to year for the same person. As such, income does not identify a class of people but only the yearly level to which one earns and does not mark a person in the way race or ethnicity or gender or even religion does.
    The whole point of this section is that even though things are treated the same (e.g. people, income types) that does not mean they are the same. Hey our bodies treat all food the same, breaking it down into nutrients, sending those through the body and the waste away, but all foods are different. This is still to my point that you can't say risk is risk is risk, or income is income is income. They are all different and thus warrant at least consideration as to whether or not they are treated the same or different.

    I have long supported an across the board five point increase for ALL people who earn dollar one.
    I'm not so sure about dollar one, because I do support that no one, absolutely no one, should have to pay taxes on the basic necessities of life, nor should anyone receive back from income taxes more than they put in. Now dollar one above that basic necessities of life level, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    The proclaimed 23% rate is actually 30%, and that is nowhere near enough to achieve the promised revenue-neutrality.
    I agree that the number in and of itself can be misleading IF one does not explain where it comes from. You cannot effectively compare an inclusive tax (income tax) to and exclusive tax (sales tax) unless you convert one to the other. It's the same as comparing miles to KM. You need to convert one to the other to see the real difference. So if you want to go with the 30% tax rate (which is the exclusive rate) then you need to convert all the income tax rates (which are inclusive) to exclusive and they will all jump up similarly.

    It creates huge incentives for fraud as between what is a "new" and "used" good, and there is nowhere near the claimed collection mechanism already in place to cover 100% of transactions, given that state and local sales tax regimes cover only about 50% of all transactions.
    The current system has huge incentives for fraud and under the table wages are a lot easier to hide. Right now the government has to track all citizens AND all business. Under Fair Tax, they only have to track business.

    However, we may want to be careful not to go off topic too fully here as this really ends up not dealing with inheritance taxes save that under Fair Tax such a tax would not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    You are not your estate. You and your estate do not exist as contemporaries. An estate is an entirely separate legal entity that enters into existence upon your death. It is comprised of assets. Those may include income-earning assets, and if so, the estate (not you) will be liable for any income tax applicable to its earnings under law. Taxes are meanwhile not levied against an estate but against the uses and distributions of the assets contained within it. Using them to build a new surgical unit at your typical local hospital or to endow a new chair at the typical local university will not incur tax. Dumping some mega-windfall profit onto darling Biff and Muffy will incur tax. Consult with a knowledgeable tax advisor or estate attorney in the unlikely event that this would appear to be a problem for you.
    NOw clear this up for those who may not be clear on this. Does the estate get taxed for giving the money to Biff and Muffy and THEN Biff and Muffy have to pay income tax on that or is it just one or the other?

    And Dang you people for being so prolific while I am at work and dealing with my kids. It makes it hard to catch up!

  7. #997
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,077

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Perhaps you joined the discussion late and did not read the last 32 hours of posts?
    man, could anyone with a job every have the time to read everything you post on how much you want to increase taxes, especially on the wealthy?

  8. #998
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    man, could anyone with a job every have the time to read everything you post on how much you want to increase taxes, especially on the wealthy?
    If by your own admission you cannot keep up with the thread, perhaps it would be prudent to abstain from sticking your neck out agreeing with others when they do not have any leg to stand upon and clearly have been refuted by several other posters?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #999
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    from maquiscat

    My biggest problem with your statements is that you lump all income as the same when they are not. Three different things being treated the same do es not make them the same. Are we agreed on that?
    Obviously there are differences in all things. An orange is different than an apple which is different from a pear which is different than a plum. However, they have a commonality which lumps them together under the classification of a fruit. Baseball is different than tennis which is different than hockey which is different than waterpolo. However, they have a commonality which lumps them together under the classification of sports.

    The same here. There are many ways one can obtain money to put into their pocket or account. Earning a wage or salary is different than reaping long term capital gains which is different than winnings at a casino which is different than inheriting a fortune. However, they all have a commonality of putting money into a persons pocket or account and thus they are lumped together under the classification of income.

    That is why I think it makes good national tax policy to tax them all according to the same rate schedule and stop discriminating with preferential rates according to the source of that income.

    on pensions

    The fulfillment of a contract by both sides is rather dependent upon a) the continued existence of either party, and b) the ability of either party to fulfill the contract. If the company goes under and no longer exists then where is that pension money supposed to come from? Pensions, unlike IRA's, are paid out of a company's income. No income means no pension payments. Secondly if the money is not there, well then the money is not there.
    If a company ceases to exist, I would have hoped that they would have funded their pension obligations and those funds would exist independently and continue on. If a company goes completely out of business and no longer exists in any form, then that reality overrides everything else and is simply the way it is. What I object to is this line of thinking that a company make take in which they want to survive, they want to continue to do business, they want to keep paying the shareholders and executives, but they want to renege on their pension obligations through legal maneuvers. I would hope you too object to such shenanigans.
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-13-12 at 10:00 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  10. #1000
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    In pure numbers you are correct. I flinched at first when the rate...
    As many do, but it is far worse than they think, as the 30% rate is grossly inadequate to achieve the #1 promise, namely that the Fair Tax will be reveunue-neutral. It must yield the same amount of revenue to government as the taxes it purports to replace, and if it fails to do so, guess what happens. The rate increases for the following year. Without limit. 30% will in fact turn into 60% if the same 50% of transactions that state and local sales taxes hit is what the Fair Tax hits instead of the 100% they count on. No doubt that with work (and expense) they could do better than 50%, but they cannot reach anything like 100%, even assuming that the burden of the tax does not drive huge new segments of the economy underground.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    ...so this becomes "at point of transaction" taxation...
    Yes, this is another of its weaknesses, as lumping such huge burdens of taxation at a single point creates huge incentives for fraud and evasion. VAT taxes in Europe are similar in form but far more widely dispersed along the lines of production. Yet fraud has still been one of the chief problems. Additionally, instead of being put to more worthwhile purposes, the most creative minds in the country would be devoted to developing schemes for turning "new" products into "used" products. My next career might be to sit at home, have brand new laptops delivered to my door all day, open them as they arrive, but then decide I didn't want them after all and ship them all back for a full refund. Under existing consumer law, such returns cannot be sold as "new". They could be sold tax-free.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    I don't summarize the book as well as I would like to but I do suggest it as a read...
    I'm not a newcomer.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    This is simply not true.
    Sadly, it is true. Hidden costs of taxation certainly exist, just as hidden costs of advertising exist. Fair Tax proponents routinely over-estimate the gross amounts that can be saved and -- as in the case of the new bureaucracy that will takle over for the IRS -- they seriously underestimate the offsetting costs that they are creating. The hidden employment costs of tax accountants and tax preparation workers would be saved, but where in Fair Tax literature is a realistic treatment of the unemployment costs that result from eliminating all those jobs? I've never seen one.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    First, I am not a fan of the prebate, actually neither are the authors of the bill, this is a concession to the side that is worried about the poor being hurt by this tax.
    Crushed would probably be a better word than hurt. Keep in mind that the prebate is based on consumption at THE POVERTY LEVEL. And why is it that in their 2008 prebate tables, a couple with two kids would receive a monthly check for $559, while a single Mom with three kids would receive $423? Does that make sense to you?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    ...if the IRS were to be dissolved it would not be that difficult to incorporate into the FBI former agents of the IRS to enforce collection and investigate failures to pay on collections. I think that is an economically viable alternative.
    There goes another hefty chunk of the hidden costs of taxation that are supposedly going to be saved. What you are doing here is building that new and even more intrusive IRS-replacement bureaucracy that will be needed just to keep track of where everyone is and what they are doing. If my son goes off to college, he becomes eligible for his own prebate check and my own check is supposed to go down. Same when my daughter gets married. But what if she later divorces. The IRS gets into your affairs annually. The new bureaucracy will need to do it monthly. Proponents believe that all the needed technology is already available at no cost from the Social Security Administration which currently sends out some fifty million checks a month. (Almost none of them are actual checks of course.) The workload of the new bureaucracy would be three to four times that, and they would be dealing with a much wider range of less stable variables.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    The mortgage is a standing financial service so you would pay at signing not on a continual basis so through the life of the mortgage.
    That is half correct. You would certainly pay your 30% Fair Tax at closing even if you paid straight cash. But if you finance the purchase via a mortgage, the interest portion of your monthly installment is the charge for the use of the money for that month and is hence a purchase of new financial services that is taxable. This is clear from the Fair Tax draft legislation and from text and tables on the Fair Tax website, although they make you dig for it for the same reasons that they call it 23% instead of 30%. To get technical about it, the 30% tax actually applies only to interest that is in excess of what would have been owed at an index rate based on Treasury borrowing costs. Ten-year Treasuries closed on Friday at 1.96%, so something in that sort of range would be a freebie. The 30% tax would apply to everything above it.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    I don't think behavior will change all that much. Many people already don't buy new cars due to the automatic depreciation upon leaving the lot, used cars have a lower rate, I believe that a new car/new home buyer is already of the mindset that they will pay for new. Most people who buy new homes buy because it has what they want, many buyers of existing homes do so as a trade off on cost. I see no reason this would change.
    Hmmm. The median price of a new SFH in 2011 where I live was $867,300. With the Fair Tax, that would have become $1,127,500, and if I financed 80% of that, I would have had a mortgage for $902,000. When do you suppose I will be able to sell that house again and at least break even on it? The median price of an already existing home here last year was $560,000 as an FYI. It seems to me that I end up taking a bath unless I am able to pass on the 30% tax as part of the resale price, but I will be competing with sellers who originally bought their homes 1-30 or more years ago and don't have to price for recovery of the Fair Tax premium. It looks to me like I am screwed here big time. It looks to me like I am actually underwater the second I sign on the dotted line, and that neither I nor anyone else can sensibly even consider buying a new house at all, with the same sort of thing being true on a smaller scale for new versus used cars. We pretty much become Cuba, trying to make the existing fleet of vehicles last forever. Construction and auto workers can all just go file for unemployment until they are able to find work in the suddenly booming home and auto repair services sectors.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •