which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

haymarket said:

What you have done is given us your personal opinion about it based on your ideological beliefs. And Centinel, lets face it, your ideological beliefs about politics are certainly NOT those of the average American. I am not knocking you for that or ripping on you for that. Its just reality. And even then you only spoke to the inheritance aspect and ignored the capital gains aspect.

Click to expand...

You asked for my opinion, so I gave you my opinion. And yes, my opinion is based upon my personal values and principles.

As far as capital gains, I honestly don't care. The only problem I have with capital gains is that the gain ought to be true gains, not gains due to devaluation of the currency. As far as the rate, there must be some reason why the law specifies a lower rate. Perhaps the rate is lower for a good reason.

So why should the average American, who makes their money through salary and wages, support such a system knowing full well that they are taxed in ways that make them the losers in this system because they earn their money through work and labor?

Click to expand...

Once a person pays income tax on their earnings, they should be able to share their own money to their spouse or children without their spouse or children being taxed on it. Money or wealth moving among family members does not seem to me like a taxable event.

I actually think that the average American shares this opinion.

Public opinion polls say otherwise. And it is not hard to find them and I am sure you have seen them. The overwhelming majority of people want taxes increased upon the wealthy. The obvious way to do that is to see what discriminatory practices have allowed the rich to get preferential treatment and change that so all sources of income are taxed according to the same schedule.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110458-503544.html

Fifty-six percent of Americans think taxes should be increased on households earning $250,000 a year or higher to help lower the deficit, while 37 percent say taxes should not be raised on those households.

Click to expand...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149567/americans-favor-jobs-plan-proposals-including-taxing-rich.aspx

66% favor tax increases on upper earners.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57345810-503544/poll-most-back-raising-taxes-on-millionaires/

Six in ten Americans believe Congress should raise taxes on Americans earning more than $1 million per year, according to a new CBS News poll, while only 35 percent oppose such an increase.

Click to expand...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-increase-for-wealthy-and-deep-spending-cuts/

According to the poll, 63 percent say the super committee should call for increased taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses, with 36 percent disagreeing

Click to expand...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...on-the-rich,-preserve-social-insuranceprogram

On tackling the deficit, voters by a margin of 2-to-1 support raising taxes on incomes above $250,000, with 64 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed.

Click to expand...

Independents supported higher taxes on the wealthy by 63-34 percent; Democrats by 83-15 percent; and Republicans opposed by 43-54 percent....

Most Americans DO NOT agree with you. They DO NOT share your opinion.

So now convince them they are wrong and they should support a system which rewards others and hits them harder for making the same amount of money.

While I believe a person should be able to pass on their wealth to their children, over time the funds can accumulate to such massive sums that it distorts the economy and the money itself becomes a money manipulator, self generates greater masses of income, and is raw weapon against economic competitors, money markets and overall economic health. In a sense, generation to generation growing astronomical sums of wealth becomes destructive even to those receiving it.

An inheritance tax also forces at least some effort be made to invest the money into some functional usages (to reduce the taxable estate) rather than just money making more money by virtue of having massive gobs of money.

So while I believe a person should be able to pass on even great wealth, perpetually growing astronomical sums should have some braking effect across generations.

haymarket said:

Public opinion polls say otherwise. And it is not hard to find them and I am sure you have seen them. The overwhelming majority of people want taxes increased upon the wealthy. The obvious way to do that is to see what discriminatory practices have allowed the rich to get preferential treatment and change that so all sources of income are taxed according to the same schedule.

Polls show most Americans support raising taxes on wealthy - Political Hotsheet - CBS News



Americans Favor Jobs Plan Proposals, Including Taxing Rich

Poll: Most back raising taxes on millionaires - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

New CNN Poll: Majority want tax increase for wealthy and deep spending cuts – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Daily Kos: Marist/McClatchy poll: Raise taxes on the rich, preserve social insurance program

Most Americans DO NOT agree with you. They DO NOT share your opinion.

So now convince them they are wrong and they should support a system which rewards others and hits them harder for making the same amount of money.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure these polls reflect people's opinions on inheritance taxes.

But who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and the majority of people do indeed wish to tax transfers of money between family members. In that case, I would once again find myself in the minority. I still think that it seems ridiculous to consider transferring wealth from one family member to another as taxable income.

Centinel said:

I'm not sure these polls reflect people's opinions on inheritance taxes.

But who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and the majority of people do indeed wish to tax transfers of money between family members. In that case, I would once again find myself in the minority. I still think that it seems ridiculous to consider transferring wealth from one family member to another as taxable income.

Click to expand...

If you have other data, I would be glad to look at it.

joko104 said:

While I believe a person should be able to pass on their wealth to their children, over time the funds can accumulate to such massive sums that it distorts the economy and the money itself becomes a money manipulator, self generates greater masses of income, and is raw weapon against economic competitors, money markets and overall economic health. In a sense, generation to generation growing astronomical sums of wealth becomes destructive even to those receiving it.

Click to expand...

See, this is another reason why I support creating tax incentives for rich people to have more children. After a few generations of fiscally-motivated fertility, the wealth isn't so "accumulated" anymore.

haymarket said:

While you may indeed be more that willing to allow political ideology to trump your own practical economic situation, I doubt that the vast majority of Americans are.

Click to expand...

What do you think you know about my "practical economic situation"?

Jerry said:

What do you think you know about my "practical economic situation"?

Click to expand...

Perhaps I am wrong, but I see a younger guy in a military uniform and figured that was your current occupation.

Right or wrong?

Viktyr Korimir said:

See, this is another reason why I support creating tax incentives for rich people to have more children. After a few generations of fiscally-motivated fertility, the wealth isn't so "accumulated" anymore.

Click to expand...

An alternative also would be to have automatic will allocations despite written will beyond a certain level of wealth to more dilute the mass wealth accumulation - meaning not just children or spouses but also cousins, nephews, nieces, aunts, uncles, way down the ancestry scale. I can't see that happen but that would prevent the accumulation of literally tens of billions of dollars for which those sums can manipulate virtually any market and can outright crush any competition by raw money power.

haymarket said:

Then we have people who, through the good fortune of the lottery of birth, were born into a family of means and wealth and at some point they inherit a large amount of money

Click to expand...

again, if it were just money it would be one thing - but you are attempting to go after wealth; and there your logic breaks down. the government does not deserve a piece of whatever one generation passes down to the next.

TAX FAIRNESS. That is the issue which angers so many Americans.

Click to expand...

low information Americans, perhaps - the average effective FIT rate for an wage-earner is below the 15% paid by those who live on capital gains.

When we see the details of a Mitt Romney - to use the obvious example in the news - it angers people because they view it as a violation of basic justice.

Click to expand...

then (again), they are low-information citizens working off of a false premise. I can see why we would want to mount an education campaign, but not why we would wish to encourage them in their false beliefs unless we wished to demagogue and take advantage of their ignorance for our own ends.

And all the individual stories about hard working uncles do not speak to the dissatisfaction that Americans have about this lack of basic justice when it comes to discriminatory government laws favoring one source of money over others.

Click to expand...

attempting to conflate capital gains tax with death/estate tax = fail.

Jerry said:

A dollar should be taxed only once: when it's spent.

Click to expand...

But that doesn't really result in money getting taxed only once any more than income tax does. Look at the same situation both ways.

With an income tax I get paid, and some of it is taken in taxes. I take some of that money to the local gun store and buy that new shotgun I've had my eye on. My money (which has already been taxed once) becomes income for the owner (or some of it does anyway), and gets taxed a second time.

With a sales tax, I get paid. I take some of that money to the local gun store to buy that new shotgun I've had my eye on, at which point it is taxed. The owner takes some of it as income, and goes and spends it on gas or groceries, or whatever, and it gets taxed a second time.

Jerry said:

What do you think you know about my "practical economic situation"?

Click to expand...

well, Haymarket here is referencing the Great Liberal Hope - that enough Americans can be convinced they have a right to someone else's stuff. If you actually have some kind of sense that that is wrong, and hold to it, it makes you an oddity. If you ever want to laugh your head off read "Whats The Matter With Kansas".

Another assumption is that the wealthy are Scrooge McDuck / Monopoly Man style characters who inherited vast sums and so on and so forth. Given that the vast majority of millionaires in this country are self-made, nothing could be further from the truth, but there you have it. The notion, therefore, that someone so educationally challenged as to have to serve in the military could reasonably anticipate one day accumulating wealth, therefore, is sort of beyond their range of beliefs.

cpwill said:

again, if it were just money it would be one thing - but you are attempting to go after wealth; and there your logic breaks down. the government does not deserve a piece of whatever one generation passes down to the next.



low information Americans, perhaps - the average effective FIT rate for an wage-earner is below the 15% paid by those who live on capital gains.



then (again), they are low-information citizens working off of a false premise. I can see why we would want to mount an education campaign, but not why we would wish to encourage them in their false beliefs unless we wished to demagogue and take advantage of their ignorance for our own ends.



attempting to conflate capital gains tax with death/estate tax = fail.

Click to expand...

I read and reread you post and I have rarely seens such utter contempt for your fellow Americans.

Low information voters....... really now!?!? it would seem to me people who understand that they are getting the short end of the stick by a system which treats the money of wealthy different than it does the money the working class earns are very high information voters. They have absorbed some very valuable information and it is driving the reality of their anger.

I love it when you and others grab your handy dandy referee suit from the closet and proclaim FAIL because you disagree with somebodys post based on your own peculiar slant. It would be downright hilarious were it not so self serving and disingenuous.

The fact is a simple one and all the parsing semantics about what income is or what wealth is or what money is means nothing. The fact that matters is that working people have finally caught on that the game is rigged in the favor of people who get their money through capital gains and inheritance.

Somebody who pockets $800K in wages, pays 35% on it. That is $280,000.00.
Somebody who pockets the same $800K in capital gains pays 15% on it. That is $120,000.00.
Somebody who pockets the same $800K in inheritance pays 0% on it. That is $0.00.

The warrior of the right through their libertarian and conservative think tanks have tried to brainwash average working people to go against their own economic interests for a long time now. Sadly, this Machiavellian plot has worked with some. But illumination and education is going on all over the land and people are wising up.

Again, tell the person paying $280,000.00 in taxes on the same amount of money why they should support a system which taxed them at that level while somebody else on the same amount paid $120,000.00 and others paid nothing at all.

You want to educate those people you look down your nose upon and label as "low information voters"? Start there.

cpwill said:

again, if it were just money it would be one thing - but you are attempting to go after wealth; and there your logic breaks down. the government does not deserve a piece of whatever one generation passes down to the next.



low information Americans, perhaps - the average effective FIT rate for an wage-earner is below the 15% paid by those who live on capital gains.



then (again), they are low-information citizens working off of a false premise. I can see why we would want to mount an education campaign, but not why we would wish to encourage them in their false beliefs unless we wished to demagogue and take advantage of their ignorance for our own ends.



attempting to conflate capital gains tax with death/estate tax = fail.

Click to expand...

Notice how certain people have to use weak focus words like "justice" "fairness" etc. without any legitimate context. I swear the discourse is bordering on sophomoric.

LaMidRighter said:

Notice how certain people have to use weak focus words like "justice" "fairness" etc. without any legitimate context. I swear the discourse is bordering on sophomoric.

Click to expand...

Notice how some people whine and com,plain about a lack of legitimate context when the legitimate context was right in front of their eyes the whole time but they ignored in in favor of making an ad hominem attack?

haymarket said:

Notice how some people whine and com,plain about a lack of legitimate context when the legitimate context was right in front of their eyes the whole time but they ignored in in favor of making an ad hominem attack?

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking to you. CYA

LaMidRighter said:

I wasn't talking to you. CYA

Click to expand...

You confuse me with somebody who cares who you were talking to. I have a right to jump in and post when you speak to somebody on an issue where they produced MY FREAKIN POST and used it as a springboard and you then responded to it.

Here is your precious context: go to post 341 and read that for context.

Or read this for even more context:

Let us take three examples.

case #1 George Brown. Works as a record producer and has risen up in the ranks due to hard work and his own talent. He made an income of $800,000.00 in 2011. His tax rate is 35%. Without any deductions, his tax bill is $280,000.00 in federal income tax.

case #2 is Susan Green. She does not work at a job. She has a portfolio of investments and lives off that income. In 2011, she earned an income of $800,000.00 in long term capital gains. Her tax rate is 15%. Without any deductions, her tax bill is $120,000.00 in federal income tax.

case #3 is Tom Wallace. He did not work in 2011. He did inherit $800,000.00 from his father who died leaving him the money. Because of the 5 million dollar exemption, his tax rate on the $800,000.00 is zero percent. His tax bill is nothing - zero dollars in federal income tax.

So we have three Americans all who placed $800,000.00 into their pockets in 2011.
One paid $280,000.-- in federal tax upon that sum.
Another paid $120,000.00 in federal tax upon that sum.
A third paid $0.00 in federal tax upon that sum.

Now explain to me, why the American people - the vast vast majority of which get their money from wages and salary, should support this sort of system which discriminates among sources of money and applies discriminatory rates to them?

haymarket said:

You confuse me with somebody who cares who you were talking to. I have a right to jump in and post when you speak to somebody on an issue where they produced MY FREAKIN POST and used it as a springboard and you then responded to it.

Here is your precious context: go to post 341 and read that for context.

Or read this for even more context:

Let us take three examples.

case #1 George Brown. Works as a record producer and has risen up in the ranks due to hard work and his own talent. He made an income of $800,000.00 in 2011. His tax rate is 35%. Without any deductions, his tax bill is $280,000.00 in federal income tax.

case #2 is Susan Green. She does not work at a job. She has a portfolio of investments and lives off that income. In 2011, she earned an income of $800,000.00 in long term capital gains. Her tax rate is 15%. Without any deductions, her tax bill is $120,000.00 in federal income tax.

case #3 is Tom Wallace. He did not work in 2011. He did inherit $800,000.00 from his father who died leaving him the money. Because of the 5 million dollar exemption, his tax rate on the $800,000.00 is zero percent. His tax bill is nothing - zero dollars in federal income tax.

So we have three Americans all who placed $800,000.00 into their pockets in 2011.
One paid $280,000.-- in federal tax upon that sum.
Another paid $120,000.00 in federal tax upon that sum.
A third paid $0.00 in federal tax upon that sum.

Now explain to me, why the American people - the vast vast majority of which get their money from wages and salary, should support this sort of system which discriminates among sources of money and applies discriminatory rates to them?

Click to expand...

Whatever. I really stopped taking you seriously ages ago and don't really care what you think or what you think your rights or your business is. Dismissed.

LaMidRighter said:

Whatever. I really stopped taking you seriously ages ago and don't really care what you think or what you think your rights or your business is. Dismissed.

Click to expand...

That is a lie. You only pretend to stop when you get shot down in cases like you just did. And then its a matter of self preservation.

You are infamous for sticking your neck out trying to be clever, getting it chopped off because you made no sense and then claiming you forced somebody to give you a free haircut.

Regarding the inheritance tax: I am reminded of this wisdom from one the truly greatest individuals of the last century.

Mohandas Karamachand Gandhi, one of the most influential figures in modern social and political activism, considered these traits to be the most spiritually perilous to humanity.

Wealth without Work
Pleasure without Conscience
Science without Humanity
Knowledge without Character
Politics without Principle
Commerce without Morality
Worship without Sacrifice


Please note the one that leads the list.

Inheritance requires no work of any kind on behalf of the recipient.

whereas I am reminded by:

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

- Thomas Jefferson

Click to expand...

I'll reply to your post on the previous page later, when I am not procrastinating at the gym (gawd I loathe cardio day)

Pinkie said:

Turtle is correct; the inheritance tax was meant to prevent undue concentrations of wealth. It is also easy to avoid, and inefficient. But I do not support abolishing it. I believe it can be reformed and do what it was intended.

And those who inherit farms and businesses, but not cash, can be dealt with fairly too.

Click to expand...

Yeah, undue concentration of wealth could ruin the whole society.

For 2000 years, China experienced more than 10 dynasties, most of them began with blood-shedding rebellions and ended up with blood-shedding rebellions. Why? Undue concentration of wealth, especially the farming fields, left the poor in starvation.... One could whatever they could think about when he could not survive.

Reduce the undue concentration of wealth, and help the poor to survive, that's the non-optional choice to maintain social stability.....

cpwill said:

whereas I am reminded by:



I'll reply to your post on the previous page later, when I am not procrastinating at the gym (gawd I loathe cardio day)

Click to expand...

I will see that Jefferson and match it with another Jefferson and raise you a Franklin. As cited two days ago

In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that all property be redistributed every fifty years, because"the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." Madison gently pointed out the plan's impracticality. Benjamin Franklin unsuccessfully pushed for the first Pennsylvania constitution to declare concentrated wealth"a danger to the happiness of mankind."

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

Here is what you said



So now its suddenly tripled!?!?!?!?

And I have not forgotten what you claim to pay. I simply do not care about its irrelevancy to any discussion of a national tax policy for 311 million Americans.

Click to expand...

that is what I pay, 35% is already taken from what I own before I get it.