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 84 of 195 FirstFirst ... 3474828384858694134184 ... LastLast
Results 831 to 840 of 1947

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

  1. #831
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    73,243

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

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Disclosure: I've only looked at this last page and have not followed the whole argument between you two.



    I'll go with you that the inheritor should be paying income taxes on what he receives straight up. But the estate should not be taxed prior to the transfer to the inheritor(s), except as noted in my above post.

    However with the capitol gains vs salary taxation, there is a major difference between how these two incomes are earned. The salaried person really assumes no risk whatsoever short of the business employing him failing. He works he gets paid. End of story. The investor however, takes a major risk in comparison. He may make out like a bandit (to turn a phrase), he may break even or he may lose it all. The capitol gains tax rate reflects that risk.
    Two points to that:

    1) it is not the end of the story to say that there is no risk in earning wages through work. Lots of people have risked everything on a certain employer, company or corporation and they lost and lost big. They lost their jobs, they lost their income, they lost their benefits, and some even have lost their retirement pensions. Risk - to a whole lot more than just money - is also a major part of may occupations. Among these would be policework, firefighting, certain construction jobs, and any job where physical danger is always a factor. That is a form of risk also.

    2) even if we accept your premise that investment involves risk, the next question becomes should government then subsidize that risk with preferential tax rates that are half of those for high levels of income? Why should government subsidize that risk?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #832
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,682

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Two points to that:

    1) it is not the end of the story to say that there is no risk in earning wages through work. Lots of people have risked everything on a certain employer, company or corporation and they lost and lost big. They lost their jobs, they lost their income, they lost their benefits, and some even have lost their retirement pensions. Risk - to a whole lot more than just money - is also a major part of may occupations. Among these would be policework, firefighting, certain construction jobs, and any job where physical danger is always a factor. That is a form of risk also.
    Granted but that's moving the goalpost. We're talking finances here, taxable income. The physical aspect is irrelevant to this specific discussion. In comparison to investing, there is little to no risk. In the end it comes down to you do work you get paid. While there is no guarantee that one continues to hold a job, the fact remains that for the work they put in they get paid. It is rare that such compensation does not occur even when a business goes under.

    2) even if we accept your premise that investment involves risk, the next question becomes should government then subsidize that risk with preferential tax rates that are half of those for high levels of income? Why should government subsidize that risk?
    Please note that I do not state whether or not I support government subsidized risk taking in the form of a separate tax rate. I am merely noting that Salary income is not the same as investment income, which seem to be your assertion.

  3. #833
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    73,243

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

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Granted but that's moving the goalpost. We're talking finances here, taxable income. The physical aspect is irrelevant to this specific discussion. In comparison to investing, there is little to no risk. In the end it comes down to you do work you get paid. While there is no guarantee that one continues to hold a job, the fact remains that for the work they put in they get paid. It is rare that such compensation does not occur even when a business goes under.



    Please note that I do not state whether or not I support government subsidized risk taking in the form of a separate tax rate. I am merely noting that Salary income is not the same as investment income, which seem to be your assertion.
    I don't think it is irrelevant to the discussion. When we tax about nation tax policy and what type of taxes should on citizens, it is important to remember that we are a representative democrasy where the voice and opinion of the citizen is highly important and plays a crucial role in policy and legislation. As such, anything which impacts or helps from that citizens opinion is relevant - at least to the citizen. To adopt the restrictive rules of an academic debate and pretend that there is only one type of risk - FINANCIAL RISK - that is important is going to give us a false picture of the citizens concerns.

    As to your compensation argument, whle the pay holds true, many people have lost their retirement pensions - and many more feel they are at risk - so that point still remains valid.

    My assertion is that a million dollars coming in to ones pocketbook or account still a million dollars regardless if it is in wages, lottery winnings, capital gains or inheritance. It looks the same and it spends the same. We know darn well that the wealthy dispropiortionately benefit from both the laws on capital gains and inheritance while the average worker does not reap these benefits to the extent.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #834
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,682

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I don't think it is irrelevant to the discussion. When we tax about nation tax policy and what type of taxes should on citizens, it is important to remember that we are a representative democrasy where the voice and opinion of the citizen is highly important and plays a crucial role in policy and legislation. As such, anything which impacts or helps from that citizens opinion is relevant - at least to the citizen. To adopt the restrictive rules of an academic debate and pretend that there is only one type of risk - FINANCIAL RISK - that is important is going to give us a false picture of the citizens concerns.
    Then by that logic, a person who is in a high risk job should be taxed less? Somehow I believe you answer would be no by your other comments. If your point is that regardless of the source of money the tax should be the same, then what point does the physical risks of the job hold to how the income from it should be taxed. When it comes to the issue of taxes and finances then yes financial risk is a legitimate factor and physical risk is not. On the other hand, when it comes to matters of compensation of labor/service given, then yes the physical risk is a factor that comes into play. Logic still comes into play and unless you can determine a logical reason why physical risk should be a factor in taxation vice compensation then please present it. Taxation and compensation, while both fruits (i.e. financial in nature) nonetheless they are apples and oranges.

    As to your compensation argument, whle the pay holds true, many people have lost their retirement pensions - and many more feel they are at risk - so that point still remains valid.
    Again moving the goalpost, albeit not as far this time. One is not required to participate in a company pension plan, and personally, anyone who does is a fool. Regardless, short of placing that money under a mattress any retirement savings that are invested somewhere is at risk. But those are AFTER PAY dollars, regardless of whether or not they are pre-tax or post-tax (401k vs Roth IRA). In otherwords, whether or not that money is invested, it is still earned and thus the risk to the individual is taken seperate from the job itself. You still get the same amount of money for 40hr/wk, 52wk/yr over 20 years, whether or not you invest that money and regardless of what you invest that in. Therefore there is still no financial risk in wage/salary income.

    My assertion is that a million dollars coming in to ones pocketbook or account still a million dollars regardless if it is in wages, lottery winnings, capital gains or inheritance. It looks the same and it spends the same. We know darn well that the wealthy dispropiortionately benefit from both the laws on capital gains and inheritance while the average worker does not reap these benefits to the extent.
    While it may seem so to you, it simply isn't so, or at least to this citizen's view, and obviously my voice and opinion is as highly impoertant and as crucial as your own. Inheritance is a straight up no risk, no work form of income. Lottery winnings are no work, small risk income assuming any winning is done. Investing/capitol gains is high risk, and as to work, well it depends on what you are going to consider work. A lot of investigation usually goes into determining if an investment has a chance of producing a yield. It's a full time job for some people. So I would not call it a low work or no work kind of income, but the sad reality is that some people do invest with little to no work and usually lose everything doing so. Finally, wage/salary is a no risk, high work form of income.

    Now should they be treated differently or the same? That is a legitimate question and one to be discussed. But it is a faulty premise to call them the same and it is not against logic to consider that since they are different they can be treated or taxed differently.

  5. #835
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    73,243

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

    from masquiscat

    Then by that logic, a person who is in a high risk job should be taxed less?
    I do not see how you made that jump. My pojnt is the opposite of that assertion.

    Somehow I believe you answer would be no by your other comments. If your point is that regardless of the source of money the tax should be the same, then what point does the physical risks of the job hold to how the income from it should be taxed. When it comes to the issue of taxes and finances then yes financial risk is a legitimate factor and physical risk is not. On the other hand, when it comes to matters of compensation of labor/service given, then yes the physical risk is a factor that comes into play. Logic still comes into play and unless you can determine a logical reason why physical risk should be a factor in taxation vice compensation then please present it. Taxation and compensation, while both fruits (i.e. financial in nature) nonetheless they are apples and oranges.
    No. My point is that risk is risk is risk an d it comes in all shapes and sizes and forms. And I do not want the government subsidizing risk.

    regarding risk and pensions

    Again moving the goalpost, albeit not as far this time. One is not required to participate in a company pension plan, and personally, anyone who does is a fool. Regardless, short of placing that money under a mattress any retirement savings that are invested somewhere is at risk. But those are AFTER PAY dollars, regardless of whether or not they are pre-tax or post-tax (401k vs Roth IRA). In otherwords, whether or not that money is invested, it is still earned and thus the risk to the individual is taken seperate from the job itself. You still get the same amount of money for 40hr/wk, 52wk/yr over 20 years, whether or not you invest that money and regardless of what you invest that in. Therefore there is still no financial risk in wage/salary income.
    Your personal views on investment and retirement are your personal views on investment and retirement. How can you put yourself in some lofty position of looking down upon others and pass judgment about company retirement programs that people entered decades ago before we had a spat of pension problems? When a person honored their end of the agreement, and then were screwed by a company who reneged on their obligations, that risk was never something that was foreseen or anticipated but ended up being there just the same.

    The point here is the same one - government should NOT be in the business of subsidizing risk and that is what they are doing - by your own admission - with preferential and discriminatory rates favoring the wealthy who benefit from generous inheritance exemptions and favorable tax rates on capital gains.






    While it may seem so to you, it simply isn't so, or at least to this citizen's view, and obviously my voice and opinion is as highly impoertant and as crucial as your own. Inheritance is a straight up no risk, no work form of income. Lottery winnings are no work, small risk income assuming any winning is done. Investing/capitol gains is high risk, and as to work, well it depends on what you are going to consider work. A lot of investigation usually goes into determining if an investment has a chance of producing a yield. It's a full time job for some people. So I would not call it a low work or no work kind of income, but the sad reality is that some people do invest with little to no work and usually lose everything doing so. Finally, wage/salary is a no risk, high work form of income.

    Now should they be treated differently or the same? That is a legitimate question and one to be discussed. But it is a faulty premise to call them the same and it is not against logic to consider that since they are different they can be treated or taxed differently.
    You are simply trying to created differences where there is far more similarity than difference in order to justify preferential tax rates which benefit the rich over wage earners.

    A million dollars in ones pocket is still a million dollars in ones pocket regardless if it came from wages, winnings, capital gains or inheritance. That is undeniable. As such, government needs to get out of the business of discriminating by source of the money and simply tax the money according to the same tax schedules.

    Risk is a bogus argument that is irrelevant because it intentionally sets out to justify discriminatory and preferential rates and taxes that only benefit a small number of Americans. As such, we the people should not support it or tolerate it. RISK is just lipstick on a pig.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #836
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    157,324

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

    why do people who pay the most actual tax dollars also have to pay the highest effective rates generally?

  7. #837
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 06:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    why do people who pay the most actual tax dollars also have to pay the highest effective rates generally?
    In what country is that happening??? Capital gains tax rates and inheritance taxes are the lowest in the entire history of those taxes.
    Last edited by Catawba; 02-09-12 at 10:41 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #838
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    157,324

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    In what country is that happening??? Capital gains tax rates and inheritance taxes are the lowest in the entire history of those taxes.
    you didn't read very well

    the people who pay the most actual tax dollars are for the most part paying the highest tax rates

  9. #839
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    73,243

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    why do people who pay the most actual tax dollars also have to pay the highest effective rates generally?
    They don't.

    By their own admission, I pay a higher rate than some millionaires do.
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-10-12 at 08:39 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. #840
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,860

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

    I voted that the first 5 million dollars should be exempt. After that the tax rate should be 35%.

Posting Permissions

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