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 74 of 195 FirstFirst ... 2464727374757684124174 ... LastLast
Results 731 to 740 of 1947

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

  1. #731
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,771

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

    from cpwill

    yawn. since you decided to start cutting out great swathes of the evidence arrayed against you, I've decided to simplify down to what seem to be the basic key points and answer them.
    So much of what you write is meaningless and irrelevant. It has been refuted time after time after time by so many posters that it need not waste further bandwidth. Does you own ego demand that every word you write be examined and replied to?

    1. You claim that we are currently subsidizing the wealthy rather than the general lower-and-middle-income earners by taxing capital gains less. Your claim is demonstrated false by the IRS and the CBO, both of whom agree that in fact lower and middle income earners pay tax rates that are below the capital gains rate.
    Actually the rules of the IRS rates screams loudly that it is reality. A person who makes a million in wages is hit with the top tax rate of 35% which effectively comes out to 32.6% without any deductions. The person who declares the same one million dollars in their pocket from capital gains is hit with a top tax rate of 15% without any deductions. The person who inherits the same one million dollars is hit with a tax rate of 0%. That is simply reality from the IRS itself. For you to deny it is to deny reality and all the spin or analysis in the world does not change that.

    2. You claim that we should tax all transfers of wealth as income... except for the transfers of wealth which you find obviously not right to tax. The dividing line appears to be magical, arbitrary, and exist only in your head. Certainly you have been unable thus far to logically describe it other than to allude to things which "should be obvious." I would say it should be obvious that you don't tax in-family transfers, to include (for example) family owned businesses. That's a "dividing line". It provides a rule (don't tax inter-family transfers) that can be established, followed, and used as logical guidance for revision of the tax code. But simply saying "well, don't tax the stuff that you obviously shouldn't tax" is not logical guidance that can be clearly followed. Instead it is entirely arbitrary and utterly subjective.
    As I previously explained to others here before you jumped in, in writing laws - and tax law is no exception - what is done is that you develop a rule, a principle , a guideline that you want to center your language around. In this case - taxing money going into a persons pocket regardless of the source be it wages, capital gains or inheritance as income. That is the guiding principle we follow. Then, you define your terms to fit what you want to construct the law to be. I do this most days of the work week and have done it many many times. You then look at the obvious exceptions that you need to put in the law because of practical concerns, political concerns, economic concerns or many other reasons. In other words - the rule is not a hard and fast rule but is an overarching goal you try to achieve without too many exceptions. Again, this is how laws are written and I do this most days.

    The concerns about children and gifts would be some of the things the law would deal with and exclude - as they now do with limits and provisions. The key , of course, is that the exclusions or exceptions should not gut the intent and overarching rule of the bill itself. Your suggested exemption for in family wealth transfers would effectively do just that and it is obvious why you suggest such an exception.

    Writing such legislation is an extremely time consuming process and involves many different people providing their input. Legislators, staff, policy experts, lawyers, accountants and the political folks all get a swing at it and all can have a hand in it. It can take months of time to get such a bill on the page.

    For you or anyone to think that I can sit down right here and duplicate that sort of effort is ridiculous and simply unrealistic. I have provided you an overarching rule that we should follow and state clearly that there will be practical exceptions as there are in any such legislation.




    Addendum: the stuff about the FIT rates and capital gains v "labor" income etc isn't really part of the thread, and merely a continuing divergence from the topic at hand, which is the estate/death/inheritance/etc tax. And the more you pretend to not know the difference between nominal and effective tax rates, the more you appear to be willing to place politically advantageous demagoguery ahead of legitimate policy discussion.
    That sort of dishonest effort to limit the discussion to what some people want to limit the discussion to comes up time and time and time again in thread after thread after thread when the topic of taxation is discussed. Taxation in the USA is something that cannot be limited to just one tax paid to one level of government and we all pretend that this tax exists in a universe all by itself and nothing else is of importance or nothing else is going on except the one tax on the board under examination. We see the right want to restrict discussion over and over again.

    The fact is a simple one and I have provided numerous respected public opinion polls which demonstrate that somewhere between 60 and 70% of Americans favor increasing taxes upon the wealthy. We then have to look at why the average American is angry about our current system and why the rich are permitted to game the system and how they game the system. And it is clear that the answer is found in the tax codes from the IRS
    1- taxing income up to a 35% top rate, while
    2- taxing capital gains up to a 15% top rate, while
    3- excluding over 5 million dollars of inheritance

    This ends up with the system we have the the very wealthy have effectively found a way around the progressive income tax and the higher rates for top income levels.

    Any honest discussion of taxation in America is right and correct to include a complete as possible picture of taxes - ALL of them that impact ALL Americans at ALL levels of government.
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-05-12 at 11:56 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

  2. #732
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    So much of what you write is meaningless and irrelevant. It has been refuted time after time after time by so many posters that it need not waste further bandwidth. Does you own ego demand that every word you write be examined and replied to?
    no, but I expect you to respond to, rather than ignore, facts which directly contradict your claims. well, that's not necessarily true... but you should.

    Actually the rules of the IRS rates screams loudly that it is reality. A person who makes a million in wages is hit with the top tax rate of 35% which effectively comes out to 32.6% without any deductions.
    helped you out there by highlighting your problem.

    According to the IRS, someone making a million in wages actually pays an effective rate of a good bit less than that, and even if all $1 million of that was in capital gains, they would still be paying an effective rate a good bit more than Joe Schmoe making $60K.

    The person who declares the same one million dollars in their pocket from capital gains is hit with a top tax rate of 15% without any deductions.
    again, as long as you continue to insist on talking about nominal rather than effective tax rates, you are arguing about situations that do not exist.

    The person who inherits the same one million dollars is hit with a tax rate of 0%.
    and thank goodness.

    That is simply reality from the IRS itself
    here is the simple reality from the IRS itself:



    when you are ready to deal with that reality, you let us know.

    to deny it is to deny reality and all the spin or analysis in the world does not change that.
    I agree.

    As I previously explained to others here before you jumped in, in writing laws - and tax law is no exception - what is done is that you develop a rule, a principle , a guideline that you want to center your language around. In this case - taxing money going into a persons pocket regardless of the source be it wages, capital gains or inheritance as income. That is the guiding principle we follow.
    what a fascinating claim. So - according to your "money going into a persons' pocket" rule - if my uncles die and my young cousins inherit his small business, they will owe taxes only on the money in the bank accounts plus profits for that year?


    of course not. because you aren't after money. you are after wealth; but you refuse to provide an actual, coherent dividing line. probably at this point because you have come to the realization that your position is emotionally satisfying, but logically untenable.

    The concerns about children and gifts would be some of the things the law would deal with and exclude - as they now do with limits and provisions.
    what another fascinating claim. so if the heirs are minors then they pay no estate tax?


    what does it say about the estate tax that, in order to defend it, you have to pretend it is something it is not?

    That sort of dishonest effort to limit the discussion to what some people want to limit the discussion to comes up time and time and time again in thread after thread after thread when the topic of taxation is discussed. Taxation in the USA is something that cannot be limited to just one tax paid to one level of government and we all pretend that this tax exists in a universe all by itself and nothing else is of importance or nothing else is going on except the one tax on the board under examination. We see the right want to restrict discussion over and over again.
    yawn. so your response to my urging you to drop pretenses and accept effective tax rates as those that actually exist in the real world is to divert?

    The fact is a simple one and I have provided numerous respected public opinion polls which demonstrate that somewhere between 60 and 70% of Americans favor increasing taxes upon the wealthy.
    income taxes, yes. but you continue to insist on confusing the two. Though if you want to go to the polls....

    68% of Americans favor abolishing the estate tax, and consider the estate tax to be the "least fair" of all federal taxes
    Last edited by cpwill; 02-05-12 at 12:19 PM.

  3. #733
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,771

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

    cp -

    every case of someone filing income tax returns is different. Some folks can come up with lots of deductions. Some folks have trouble coming up with anything but their own personal deduction which is rather small.
    As such, it makes no sense and does not give an accurate picture to do anything but say anything but this is the official rate without deductions since individual variances would be so wide as to distort the true picture of what is happening to some taxpayers.

    I say this for the wage earner.
    I say this for the investor with capital gains.
    And I say this for the one who inherits.
    I am not cherry picking of taking one an not the other. I say this for all three. As such it is indeed a fair way to set up the examples.

    I do not care if Romney pays more than most Americans. It is irrelevant to a discussion of discriminatory tax rates and preferential treatment for types of income.
    I do not care if people here like Turtle pay more than most Americans. It is irrelevant to a discussion of discriminatory tax rates and preferential treatment for types of income.
    Nobody should care if I pay more than most Americans. It is irrelevant to a discussion of discriminatory tax rates and preferential treatment for types of income.

    I am not confusing income taxes - as they currently are defined - with capital gains taxes - as they are currently defined - or with estate taxes - as they are currently defined. I am proposing a change in the law for all of these and how they are defined so the overarching rule in the legislation be that we tax all three as income.

    Regarding your public opinion poll on the estate tax: I am glad to see those numbers since I myself would be one of those stating that we should abolish the estate tax. I agree that the way it is structured it is unfair.
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-05-12 at 01:13 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  4. #734
    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 earthworm View Post
    As I see it, Haymarket expresses facts. Others, including me, express opinions (there is a difference).
    "Knowing people" is not enough, what counts is doing, as Haymarket does (and I do not agree with him 100%).
    Wrong, Haymarket expresses opinion. The "facts" are hollow numbers massaged to make a point.

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    The few having excessive wealth is not good, not in the eyes of the masses...this must be respected...
    IMO, the excessive wealth is caused by overcharging for goods and services , again, not good.
    Money and economics aren't a zero sum game, this statement means nothing without context. "concentrated" wealth does not exist for the purposes of anything other than "spreading the wealth" by force. If the economy grows the money supply expands, if it shrinks the money supply either does so as well or you have inflation(more money than value) but the fact is that one minority of wealthy people doesn't mean anything more than they have a lot of money.
    I favor a reasonable tax on capital gains (30% above $100000; 15% below the arbitrary 100K $) and NO tax on an inheritance.
    No one cares what someone thinks is reasonable. Capital gains come from already taxed money as do inheritance tax funds, what you must do is find a way to justify the increases which I don't see as possible.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #735
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,771

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Wrong, Haymarket expresses opinion. The "facts" are hollow numbers massaged to make a point.
    I have always found the poster known as Haymarket to express a strong opinion but to support it with a volume of facts, data and lots of information from the historical record. His two years of formal collegiate debate certainly shows itself in his style of showing verifiable support for most of what he states as fact.

    I just wish everyone here was like that.

    oh - he is good looking also.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #736
    Sage
    presluc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,923

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

    The question was which best describes your veiw of the inheritance tax?
    Since there was no "other" veiw I voted no exempt, tax 35% from get go.
    However to describe my veiw on the inheritance tax is simple.
    LUCK
    If an average or poor person wins the lottery for say 5 or 10 million IRS agents are not far behind to get their share of taxes.
    Why then should a person lucky enough to be born rich not pay their share win they get their inheritance??
    Tiki bar regular.
    My code, never take anything for granted always expect the unexpexted.
    Never take anything you don't need ,never want anything you can't have

  7. #737
    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 earthworm View Post
    I favor a reasonable tax on capital gains (30% above $100000; 15% below the arbitrary 100K $) and NO tax on an inheritance.
    I favor replacing capital gains with an exorbitant transaction tax-- whole percentage points-- on selling securities so that holding and utilizing securities is a more profitable activity than trading them.

  8. #738
    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 Viktyr Korimir View Post
    I favor replacing capital gains with an exorbitant transaction tax-- whole percentage points-- on selling securities so that holding and utilizing securities is a more profitable activity than trading them.
    It would have a more logical basis than the current one.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  9. #739
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

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

    Quote Originally Posted by presluc View Post
    The question was which best describes your veiw of the inheritance tax?
    Since there was no "other" veiw I voted no exempt, tax 35% from get go.
    However to describe my veiw on the inheritance tax is simple.
    LUCK
    If an average or poor person wins the lottery for say 5 or 10 million IRS agents are not far behind to get their share of taxes.
    Why then should a person lucky enough to be born rich not pay their share win they get their inheritance??
    that is oozing envy. You are upset that some have luck and some don't. The purpose of government is not to even things out.

  10. #740
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,771

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    that is oozing envy. You are upset that some have luck and some don't. The purpose of government is not to even things out.
    There goes playing the ENVY CARD again.

    Presluc clearly compared winning the lottery with an accident of birth which is just a different lottery win. We tax one - so fairness dictates we tax the other. There was no ENVY in is post.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

Posting Permissions

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