which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

TurtleDude said:

why your constantly repeated example fails is its not people making 800K a year whining about the stuff you whine about. its people who are uber billionaires or government teat sucklers who are whining. The former to get the votes of the latter

Click to expand...

You and your belief about who complains or does not complain is both irrelevant and silly and is besides the point.

Your constant allegation about buying votes is something you have never supported with evidence.

None of your beliefs, none of your allegations , none of your attacks on people here can change the reality of the following:

A salary earner pays $326,000.00 in federal tax on that million in wages or salary.
An investor with long term capital gains pays less than half than amount - $150,000.00 in federal income tax on that same one million dollars.
A person who inherits pay ZERO in tax on that same one million dollars in federal income tax.

Three stacks of one million dollars that looks the same and spends the same but all three taxed as drastically different levels with the rich benefitting disporportionately from the discriminatory rates.

That is what must be changed to have a just tax system. And that is the reality that all our pontifications in the world cannot change.

haymarket said:

You and your belief about who complains or does not complain is both irrelevant and silly and is besides the point.

Your constant allegation about buying votes is something you have never supported with evidence.

None of your beliefs, none of your allegations , none of your attacks on people here can change the reality of the following:

A salary earner pays $326,000.00 in federal tax on that million in wages or salary.
An investor with long term capital gains pays less than half than amount - $150,000.00 in federal income tax on that same one million dollars.
A person who inherits pay ZERO in tax on that same one million dollars in federal income tax.

Three stacks of one million dollars that looks the same and spends the same but all three taxed as drastically different levels with the rich benefitting disporportionately from the discriminatory rates.

That is what must be changed to have a just tax system. And that is the reality that all our pontifications in the world cannot change.

Click to expand...

people making 800K in salary are investing some or most of that

they will have an estate that will be raped by the death tax-especially one proposed by people like you or Obamatardian dem politicians

so they aren't the ones who want to change the tax code to rape inheritances or investment incomes

TurtleDude said:

people making 800K in salary are investing some or most of that

they will have an estate that will be raped by the death tax-especially one proposed by people like you or Obamatardian dem politicians

so they aren't the ones who want to change the tax code to rape inheritances or investment incomes

Click to expand...

First, now your powers to correctly know the spending habits of of Americans magically extends to all people making big bucks. Truly amazing. And just how do you "know" this? You are talking out of your hat... or worse.

Providing an exemption over 5 million dollars is hardly a rape. It is in fact a generous and discriminatory benefit given to the wealthy that allows them to amass large amounts of money while working people pay tax on their earnings.

Again, you have no idea who personally wants to change the tax code unless each of them stands up and informs you. So take off the shining armor, get off the white horse, put away the golden pennant flying in the wind and quit making pontifications about things which you cannot possible know to be true. It hardly elevates your argument and in fact makes it look foolish since it is so absurd.

We really are suppose to believe you that somebody making a million dollars in salary is perfectly content to pay over $320,000 in federal income tax while his investor counterpart pays less than half that and somebody who inherits the same one million pays nothing?

You really stretch credibility with that sort of statement which runs counter and opposite of reason and logic.

Straight up it all becomes income tax, paid by whoever received it. Short of any capitol gains taxes that are due when the accounts are liquidated (since they haven't been taxed yet), the money has already been taxed once and paid for by the deceased. Now I can see an exception being made for inheriting a business straight out. Naturally any pay the receiver gets out of the business is taxed, but the business itself transferring should not be taxable. After all in normal circumstances the receiver of a business isn't normally taxed but the seller of it is. That could be an argument for a tax on the deceased's estate except that the estate is not receiving any compensation.

Disclosure: I've only looked at this last page and have not followed the whole argument between you two.

haymarket said:

A salary earner pays $326,000.00 in federal tax on that million in wages or salary.
An investor with long term capital gains pays less than half than amount - $150,000.00 in federal income tax on that same one million dollars.
A person who inherits pay ZERO in tax on that same one million dollars in federal income tax.

Click to expand...

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.

maquiscat said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

haymarket said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

maquiscat said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

haymarket said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

from masquiscat

Then by that logic, a person who is in a high risk job should be taxed less?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

TurtleDude said:

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

Click to expand...

In what country is that happening??? Capital gains tax rates and inheritance taxes are the lowest in the entire history of those taxes.

Catawba said:

In what country is that happening??? Capital gains tax rates and inheritance taxes are the lowest in the entire history of those taxes.

Click to expand...

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

TurtleDude said:

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

Click to expand...

They don't.

By their own admission, I pay a higher rate than some millionaires do.

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

haymarket said:

They don't.

By their own admission, I pay a higher rate than some millionaires do.

Click to expand...

stop fibbing. You don't pay a higher effective federal income tax rate than the vast majority of people in the top one percent

minnie616 said:

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

Click to expand...

why should any of it be taxed?

TurtleDude said:

stop fibbing. You don't pay a higher effective federal income tax rate than the vast majority of people in the top one percent

Click to expand...

Now it is you who are lying Turtle. I said SOME not VAST MAJORITY. Your own post reproduces my post so why did you change it to attack me?

TurtleDude said:

why should any of it be taxed?

Click to expand...

Do ask that with a straight face or do you really not know after debating this for months now?

TurtleDude said:

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

Click to expand...

You keep forgetting we all know that is simply not true. We've had over 400 rich whistle blowers petition Congress because their tax rates are lower than the middle class, and we have Romney's tax return.

haymarket said:

Now it is you who are lying Turtle. I said SOME not VAST MAJORITY. Your own post reproduces my post so why did you change it to attack me?

Click to expand...

BFD-who cares-the vast majority of the top one percent pay a far higher effective income tax rates than any other group. some people in the top one percent for perhaps for one tax year (due to massive offset of losses) pay no income taxes. but that's an extremely rare group.

so what exactly is the point of your claim? to justify jacking up the taxes of everyone in the top one percent?

Catawba said:

You keep forgetting we all know that is simply not true. We've had over 400 rich whistle blowers petition Congress because their tax rates are lower than the middle class, and we have Romney's tax return.

Click to expand...

WOW FOUR HUNDRED DEM SLURPERS OUT OF SEVERAL MILLION PEOPLE

and you are lying, people don't hit 15% effective rates until they are making over 200K

that's not the middle class according to your beloved leader Obama

that's the group he claims isn't paying enough income taxes

Buffett's secretary is making several hundred K a year

Middle class my ass

TurtleDude said:

BFD-who cares-the vast majority of the top one percent pay a far higher effective income tax rates than any other group. some people in the top one percent for perhaps for one tax year (due to massive offset of losses) pay no income taxes. but that's an extremely rare group.

so what exactly is the point of your claim? to justify jacking up the taxes of everyone in the top one percent?

Click to expand...

It is a Big F Deal when it is YOU who accuse me of lying when I tell the truth. And I care about people lying about me.

Get it straight that no matter how many million times you regurgitate the same old same old about those who have the most paying the most it convinces nobody here outside of your far right circle.

What is the point of my claim? A nation which can have a sensible tax policy in a society where fairness and justice rules resulting in a sustainable society that we all can be proud of. Pretty radical hey?

TurtleDude said:

WOW FOUR HUNDRED DEM SLURPERS OUT OF SEVERAL MILLION PEOPLE

and you are lying, people don't hit 15% effective rates until they are making over 200K

that's not the middle class according to your beloved leader Obama

that's the group he claims isn't paying enough income taxes

Buffett's secretary is making several hundred K a year

Middle class my ass

Click to expand...

At least you identifying the right part of your anatomy which best goes along with the content of your post.

haymarket said:

It is a Big F Deal when it is YOU who accuse me of lying when I tell the truth. And I care about people lying about me.

Get it straight that no matter how many million times you regurgitate the same old same old about those who have the most paying the most it convinces nobody here outside of your far right circle.

What is the point of my claim? A nation which can have a sensible tax policy in a society where fairness and justice rules resulting in a sustainable society that we all can be proud of. Pretty radical hey?

Click to expand...

a sensible tax policy to get your dem allies elected? perhaps

but the current tax policy only is guaranteed to keep the middle class demanding more government and creating more dependancy