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 34 of 195 FirstFirst ... 2432333435364484134 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 1947

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

  1. #331
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    I am opposed to the inheritance tax, pretty much entirely for the reasons given in the OP. I consider it a morally repugnant form of taxation and will not support it unless it includes a very high exemption and a very low rate-- and then, I still consider it to be unjustifiable.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    given the massive income taxes which did not really exist when the "reason" for the death tax was created already tax the rich plenty this abomination should be abolished.
    "Massive." That's funny.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    btw it was never designed to raise revenue but to engage in social engineering which is really not a proper role of the federal tax system
    Social engineering is a legitimate government function and the tax system is hands-down the most effective tool for fulfilling that function. It's absolutely a proper thing for the tax system to be doing. The issue is that an inheritance tax does it the wrong way, causing a lot of damage in the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luna Tick View Post
    I included 100% as an option because I've actually met people who advocate not allowing any inheritance. IMO that's a ridiculous position, but some people do support that.
    The Soviet Union originally had a 100% inheritance tax. That lasted for four years before Communist revolutionaries realized how magnificently ****ing stupid an idea it was.

  2. #332
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

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

    The wealth should be taxed when earned (with a flat tax, btw). Taxing it again (double taxation) when the owner decides to give it to his/her beloved people is a crime! End of story.

  3. #333
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    02-10-12 @ 03:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    845

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    You keep repeating that and you are wrong. For it to be a fallacy there would have to be a logical disconnect, the problem IS what I have described, the fix is getting rid of the contributing agent(being unlimited access to tax dollars through force). I will go ahead and blow you off now since you would rather attack the argument with a false premise than discuss the topic.
    LA, you are correct that the pipe is leaking from points B-Z. ****loads of tax dollars are hemorrhaging out of those holes and the whole thing is an egregious atrocity that needs to be rectified. However, there is no reason why we can't fix the leak at point A while simultaneously fixing the leaks at points B-Z. If you feel the need to further discuss the leaks at points B-Z, please go start another thread since this one is specifically about the leak at point A.


    Regarding the topic at hand:
    Premise 0)
    • You've gotten every budget cut you could ever hope for and as a result, taxes have already been cut across the board in equal percentages. (Kudos to you for starting another thread and being so damned eloquent in it that you convinced everyone to do whatever the **** it is you want us to do.)
    • We have returned to this thread and are now discussing where the government ought to get the funding to do those things and why we think taking money from those places will result in the greatest economic good for our country.


    Premise 1) The government needs money to function and that money comes from taxes.

    Premise 2) The government should try to minimize damage to the economy caused by taxes.

    Premise 3) Money in the hands of poorer people spurs the economy more than money in the hands of richer people because of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth and the fact that poorer people's money has a much higher velocity rate than richer people's money.

    Conclusion A) Eliminating and/or reducing the inheritance tax (whatever percentage we have left after performing your fantasy budget cuts) results in shifting the tax burden from the richer heirs onto the poorer workers, hurting the economy because of Premise 3.
    Last edited by Befuddled_Stoner; 01-30-12 at 06:00 AM.

  4. #334
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    so the income of the heirs rather than the size of the estate is what matters to you?

    and would you have all gifts taxed the same way?
    Yes. Gifts, inheritance, income, capital gains, I think it should all be taxed the same way. I don't see a need for having all these special cases. They're basically all the same thing (money passing from one person to another) just for different reasons.

    I'm a big fan of simplifying tax laws as much as possible.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  5. #335
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Befuddled_Stoner View Post
    Premise 3) Money in the hands of poorer people spurs the economy more than money in the hands of richer people because of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth and the fact that poorer people's money has a much higher velocity rate than richer people's money.
    Premise 3 is an excellent argument in favor of the progressive income tax, which you know I support, but it doesn't justify an inheritance tax. The amount of revenue that you can generate via this method of taxation is simply not enough to justify the harm that it causes to small businesses, whom it unduly burdens. When the Waltons have to pay a death tax, they sell a few million dollars' worth of stock and nobody loses their job; when the owners of a family-owned ranch have to pay a death tax, they have to sell the whole goddamned thing. If you're worried about unduly burdening the middle class, you need to understand that this kind of tax hurts them most of all, and it hurts them more than any other kind of tax. This is the tax that kills small businesses and thwarts upward mobility in this country.

    It isn't enough that the death tax is dead. Its head needs to be cut off, its mouth stuffed with garlic, and it needs to be buried at the crossroads.

  6. #336
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    We have been through this and I have told you that is not my view about a parent and a child and his oatmeal. Why do you dishonestly keep beating that same phony drum?
    Well, I'm exploring your argument to StillBallin that whenever wealth moves from one person to the next, it is considered income. If you remember, he argued thusly:
    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    I fail to see the relevance of this statement. Giving someone else a gift, a simple transfer of money/wealth from one individual to another for no goods bought and no services rendered is not income. That's what I'm arguing. And I personally believe that only income should be taxable.
    You, on the other hand, argued against this position, defining income as "money or wealth being acquired by a person that they did not previously have as their own."

    After some exploration, you have clarified your stance to exclude money or wealth acquired by a minor child. So my first question is, Why? The child is receiving wealth they previously did not own, so, per your definition, they have received income, so why wouldn't we consider this income per your definition.

    To further explore this line, what if I give my adult child a few hundred bucks to take his wife out to dinner. He would be receiving wealth he did not previously have, so I'm guessing that this would also be considered taxable income per your rule?

    Again, I am exploring your definition of income because I believe your definition is entirely too broad. It would seem to classify too much as income. I agree with StillBallin that a simple transfer of wealth from one individual to another is not income and should not be taxed. This would include wealth transferred from a parent to a minor child, and from a parent to an adult child.

  7. #337
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    Premise 3 is an excellent argument in favor of the progressive income tax
    hmmm..

    ...Sacrifice theory and the marginal utility of money

    ...Sacrifice theory is perhaps the most historically prominent and persistent argument in favor of progressive taxation. Stated simply, the theory posits that the fairest tax is one that extracts from each taxpayer an equal or proportionate “sacrifice.” The theory rejects the quid-pro-quo notion that taxes are remitted in return for government benefits and instead treats taxes simply as a burden that must be shared in the most equitable way. Sacrifice theory is dependent upon the economic principle that holds there is a marginal-utility curve for money to the effect that the more money one earns, the less utility (or satisfaction) will be derived from the last dollar earned. Thus, if you plot a chart in which the vertical axis is units of marginal utility a person gets from money, and the horizontal axis is the amount of money the person earns, the curve will eventually have a downward slope. A downward slope indicates, for example, that an incremental $1,000 has greater utility to a person earning $10,000 a year than it has to someone earning $100,000.

    The economic principle of marginal utility on which sacrifice theory depends is sound. However, there are several difficulties with the sacrifice theory itself that render it untenable as an argument for progression.

    First, the basic premise of sacrifice theory is conceptually flawed. The notion that taxes are simply a burden that must be tolerated rather than a payment for benefits raises the question: Why would the citizens of a democracy vote to impose taxes on themselves if they did not expect benefits in return? And if the government does provide benefits (which of course it does), why would the payment of taxes be considered a sacrifice rather than a fair payment for value received?...

    Second, the validity of the theory depends on more than just the existence of a downward sloping marginal-utility curve. For progression to be justified under a theory of equal sacrifice, the curve must not only decline, but decline more rapidly than income rises. In the view of British economist Arthur Pigou and others, there is no way to prove this is true:

    All that the law of diminishing utility asserts is that the last ₤1 of a ₤1000 income carries less satisfaction than the last ₤1 of a ₤100 income does. From this datum it cannot be inferred that, in order to secure equal sacrifice . . . taxation must be progressive. In order to prove that the principle of equal sacrifice necessarily involves progression we should need to know that the last ₤10 of a ₤1000 income carries less satisfaction than the last ₤1 of a ₤100 income; and this the law of diminishing utility does not assert.


    Seligman credits the Dutch economist A.J. Cohen-Stuart with debunking the notion that there is a universal marginal-utility curve that dictates progression. Here Seligman summarizes Cohen-Stuart: “It is perfectly possible . . . to construct tables [curves] which lead not to progression, but to proportion and even to regression.”*

    Third, the sacrifice argument for progression is dependent upon the additional assumption that the marginal-utility curves of all persons are essentially the same. While it is well accepted that marginal-utility curves will eventually slope downward, it is by no means true that all curves have the same slope. In fact, in comparing the marginal-utility curves of Tom, Dick, and Harry Class, there are any number of reasons why Harry’s marginal utility curve might decline less steeply than Tom’s and Dick’s. Imagine, for example, that Harry has a learning-disabled son who needs costly special education, or that Harry’s wife has an illness that requires expensive medication not covered by insurance.... Seligman calls this the “very core objection” to sacrifice theory:

    The imposition of “equal sacrifices” on all taxpayers must always remain an ideal impossible of actual realization. Sacrifice denotes something psychical; something psychological . . . Two men may have the same income, which they may value at very different rates. The one may be a bachelor, the other a man with a large family dependent upon him; the one may be well, the other ill . . . the one may earn his income, the other may receive it as a gift . . . The attempt to ascertain a
    mathematical scale of progression, so as to avoid a charge of arbitrariness, is foredoomed to failure...


    This inability to prove the sameness of the marginal-utility curves of different people troubled Blum and Kalven to the point that they dismissed sacrifice theory as a theory on which to base a fair tax system:

    The error lies in trying to translate money, which can be measured in definite units, into corresponding units of satisfaction or well-being. In the end satisfaction in the sense of happiness defies quantification. Utility is a meaningful concept; units of utility are not. It is in the face of this difficulty that, even waiving all other objections, the whole elaborate analysis of progression in terms of sacrifice and utility doctrine finally collapses

    ...
    which you know I support, but it doesn't justify an inheritance tax. The amount of revenue that you can generate via this method of taxation is simply not enough to justify the harm that it causes to small businesses, whom it unduly burdens.
    that is true. The cost of collecting the estate tax is roughly analogous to the amount of revenue it generates, making the tax itself a wash. and for that we destroy small business.

    When the Waltons have to pay a death tax, they sell a few million dollars' worth of stock and nobody loses their job; when the owners of a family-owned ranch have to pay a death tax, they have to sell the whole goddamned thing. If you're worried about unduly burdening the middle class, you need to understand that this kind of tax hurts them most of all, and it hurts them more than any other kind of tax. This is the tax that kills small businesses and thwarts upward mobility in this country.
    bingo and precisely. yet folks always feel the need to bring up Paris Hilton.

    the class warriors always aim at the wealthy... but hit the middle and lower income classes.

    It isn't enough that the death tax is dead. Its head needs to be cut off, its mouth stuffed with garlic, and it needs to be buried at the crossroads.

  8. #338
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:07 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,069

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

    You are attempting to place me in a straight jacket. Sorry - but it does not fit.

    What you are trying to do is to take my basic idea - taxing money that a person gets - and find loopholes like the oatmeal situation - which then you can apply to attempt to make my idea look bad. You take a basic idea about taxation and attempt to take something said in a discussion and apply it as a hard and fast rule playing GOTCHA which is silly. Your entire scenario about taxing oatmeal is simply absurd and nobody is contemplating such nonsense.

    The facts are obvious to anyone trying to approach this topic honestly without the GOTCHA mentality that you are exhibiting.

    We should abolish the inheritance tax and simply tax transfers of estates as normal income.
    If you want to argue about gifts - there are already laws and rules that cover that sort of thing. They would cover your example.
    Last edited by haymarket; 01-30-12 at 08:09 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

  9. #339
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

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

    well, if it was just money, then it would be less of an issue - you are attempting to tax inherited wealth.

  10. #340
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You are attempting to place me in a straight jacket. Sorry - but it does not fit.

    What you are trying to do is to take my basic idea - taxing money that a person gets - and find loopholes like the oatmeal situation - which then you can apply to attempt to make my idea look bad. You take a basic idea about taxation and attempt to take something said in a discussion and apply it as a hard and fast rule playing GOTCHA which is silly. Your entire scenario about taxing oatmeal is simply absurd and nobody is contemplating such nonsense.

    The facts are obvious to anyone trying to approach this topic honestly without the GOTCHA mentality that you are exhibiting.

    We should abolish the inheritance tax and simply tax transfers of estates as normal income.
    If you want to argue about gifts - there are already laws and rules that cover that sort of thing. They would cover your example.
    I'm not trying to play gotcha, but am trying to fully understand your ideas on what constitutes income. I'm happy to hear that your general idea is not as hard and fast as I originally thought, and that you would not consider certain kinds of wealth transfers to be taxable income. (Such as the income a child receives from a parent.)

    I still agree with StillBallin that simple transfers of wealth are not income, as they are not accounted for in GDP. Thus my position would be that gifts and inheritances should not constitute taxable income.

Posting Permissions

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