• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?


  • Total voters
    126
Status
Not open for further replies.

Luna Tick

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,148
Reaction score
867
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Okay, unlike my other poll that was not about inheritance, this one actually is, specifically, the inheritance tax, aka the estate tax or derisively known as the death tax. It's about if you think there should be one and, if so, how much.

I'll admit my views. Some of you will be surprised since I most often agree with liberals and socialists. This is a rare issue in which I agree with many Republicans. I think wealthy people should have to pay a higher rate of tax than the poor or middle class while alive. However, IMO, their tax rate in death should be zero percent no matter what the amount of money or property is being passed on to the heirs. My reasons are as follows:
  • The person who has died has already paid tax on that money when alive.
  • The inheritance tax can hurt businesses. For example, a person owns a chain of restaurants worth more than 5 million dollars, but doesn't have high liquid assets in the bank. Say the restaurants are worth 20 million. When the heirs inherit them, they get the restaurants, but not any liquid capital. They therefore have to somehow cough up whatever tax amount is owed. Often they end up having to sell the assets in order to cover the taxes on them, sometimes which results in shutting the business down. It makes more sense to me to simply let them inherit the restaurants and keep them running as they were when the person was alive.
So vote your opinion.
 
Last edited:
I'm not in favor of the estate tax.

In general terms, I am against taxes on wealth in general. I just think it makes more sense for the government to tax income (a flow) rather than wealth (a stock) in the form of estate taxes, property taxes, and whatnot, and this includes transfers of wealth from one person to another.
 
Last edited:
If you get money you didn't have before you should pay taxes.

Whether its from a lottery ticket, job, or inheritance.
 
I hesitate to support this tax, but a lack of inheritance tax creates an Aristocracy. With that being said, 50% tax rate is highway robbery. I went with the 35% and the first $5 million exempt. Some people own farms or businesses, and can rack up $5 million in assets alone. These people aren't super rich. It's a tricky issue. I don't want to punish people who have work hard and saved. I just want to prevent the System we have now from existing.
 
Since anyone with a large enough estate can wrangle their way around estate taxes anyway, I think reform is needed. Why isn't the tax progressive like regular income tax? Why is it this confiscatory flat rate?

In 2001, the Federal estate tax on $3 million was figured with a $675,000 exemption and then 55% on the remainder. That resulted in a Federal tax of $1,278,750. State taxes vary. If I'm understanding Illinois' estate tax rate, on $3 million, the tax would be 7.5%. For God's sake, that's 62.5%. How nutz is that? We don't tax income that high. Why on earth would we tax the fruits of someone's labor that have already been taxed??

What the heck gives the government a right to confiscate?? It's thievery.

So I say exempt a certain amount....I don't know, $3 million...get rid of all of the trust loopholes and tax it progressively with the top rate being certainly no higher than the highest bracket of income tax.
 
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. Any politician who would try to impose a 100% tax hopefully would lose his office-or worse-immediately

the inheritance tax is designed to appeal to envy and is a most inefficient tax-more money is spent trying to avoid it than it raises. the people who most support it are those who benefit from it-democrat politicians, tax lawyers, insurance salesman and some charities who think if it goes away so will donations

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
 
If you get money you didn't have before you should pay taxes.

Whether its from a lottery ticket, job, or inheritance.

why does the government have such a need? why give an irresponsible spending entity more money to waste?
 
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. Any politician who would try to impose a 100% tax hopefully would lose his office-or worse-immediately

the inheritance tax is designed to appeal to envy and is a most inefficient tax-more money is spent trying to avoid it than it raises. the people who most support it are those who benefit from it-democrat politicians, tax lawyers, insurance salesman and some charities who think if it goes away so will donations

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

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.
 
why do people need so much money to be happy? My family barely gets by but everything is fine and we are ok with that. I don't need millions of dollars to be happy.
 
why do people need so much money to be happy? My family barely gets by but everything is fine and we are ok with that. I don't need millions of dollars to be happy.

Who said anything about need? This is more about what is appropriate for the government to take.
 
why do people need so much money to be happy? My family barely gets by but everything is fine and we are ok with that. I don't need millions of dollars to be happy.

that is a true measure of success. its a mindset. if you are happy than you have achieved what many cannot or will not
 
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.

Of course there are people like that-most of us call them thieves
 
Who said anything about need? This is more about what is appropriate for the government to take.
it has everything to do with need, if people weren't so sensitive about money they did not even earn then we would not be having this debate. I see no reason that anybody needs 5 million in inheritance, and if they do a 35% tax is nothing to them.
 
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.
 
it has everything to do with need, if people weren't so sensitive about money they did not even earn then we would not be having this debate. I see no reason that anybody needs 5 million in inheritance, and if they do a 35% tax is nothing to them.

No, you're looking at it the wrong way. The people who receive the inheritance don't really care much about the tax since they don't pay it. So often, they're really happy to get what they get. The people who are angry about estate taxes are the people with the money who are trying to leave it to their heirs -- and suddenly find out that Uncle Sam's an heir at the rate of 62.5%.
 
There should never be an inheritance tax, it basically amounts to triple taxation. First off, all monies that went into the estate whether they be in the form of investments, ownership of a company, income, or royalties from an invention have already been taxed, then any gains from using the money wisely have been taxed again. The estate thus becomes the sum total of whatever was left over from the government taxing the revenue stream twice already. Then the government comes in and says that whatever is left is subject to a third tax due to no other merit than the original property holder no longer has possession of it. This is such a ridiculous mentality and should be abolished.

A little background on my stance. I am still a licensed insurance agent but considering leaving my practice as I have lost my drive for what I do, mant agents use the inheritance tax to sell products to minimize estate shrinkage, it is legitimate but there are better methods to sell the products such as investment growth by freeing up dollars to be inherited using insurance policies(also legit). The CPA and legal lobbies love the estate tax because it complicates the tax code and forces the wealthy to hire professionals in this field to save what they can for their families due to the basic theft upon their deaths. And of course politicians love the inheritance tax because it's an easy class warfare sell and nets them even more freebies at someone else's expense.

Basically the inheritance tax needs to be abolished forever, the income tax needs to be repealed in lieu of a national sales or flat tax, and the tax code should be simplified to never more than 10 pages for individuals of all tax brackets.
 
it has everything to do with need, if people weren't so sensitive about money they did not even earn then we would not be having this debate. I see no reason that anybody needs 5 million in inheritance, and if they do a 35% tax is nothing to them.
Someone earned the money though, and it wasn't the government, it wasn't anyone enrolled in government services, it was the deceased and that person is the only one who should make the final decisions on who gets to partake when they have passed.
 
it has everything to do with need, if people weren't so sensitive about money they did not even earn then we would not be having this debate. I see no reason that anybody needs 5 million in inheritance, and if they do a 35% tax is nothing to them.

Need has no issue when it comes to keeping what you earn. I find those who want to tell others what they need to keep of their own property to be dangerous. You certainly have the right to tell us what you need, but you really don't have the right to say that your need is an affirmative duty on us to give it to you or be forced to supply you with what you need

and You certainly have no right or standing to tell me what I need-especially if I legally own or earn it
 
it has everything to do with need, if people weren't so sensitive about money they did not even earn then we would not be having this debate. I see no reason that anybody needs 5 million in inheritance, and if they do a 35% tax is nothing to them.
Double taxation, I'm not so sure you'd be in favor of the concept if you were on the receiving end.
 
it has everything to do with need, if people weren't so sensitive about money they did not even earn then we would not be having this debate. I see no reason that anybody needs 5 million in inheritance, and if they do a 35% tax is nothing to them.

It's not always liquid cash. In the example of the chain of restaurants worth 20 million, 35% tax on that is 7 million dollars. If someone inherits those restaurants, but not much cash, he or she has to come up with that 7 mil somehow or sell some of the restaurants or close some down and lay people off. To me that makes no sense. It seems better for jobs and the economy to just leave them alone and let the restaurants continue as they did before the death.
 
it has everything to do with need, if people weren't so sensitive about money they did not even earn then we would not be having this debate. I see no reason that anybody needs 5 million in inheritance, and if they do a 35% tax is nothing to them.

Why should "they have too much" or "they have more than they need to be happy" be a prima facie argument for the government taxing it? After all, that wealth has already been taxed at least once when the individual earned it.
 
Last edited:
No, you're looking at it the wrong way. The people who receive the inheritance don't really care much about the tax since they don't pay it. So often, they're really happy to get what they get. The people who are angry about estate taxes are the people with the money who are trying to leave it to their heirs -- and suddenly find out that Uncle Sam's an heir at the rate of 62.5%.
There was an article done about the death of George Steinbrenner, they said if he had passed in 2011 versus 2010 the family would not have been able to pay the taxes and keep the New York Yankees. Some people who say "but they didn't earn it anyway" are fools, Hal and his brother Hank were making executive decisions with their dad for years before he passed, and because they were not yet principle owners but would inherit the contolling interest they would have lost all their dad and themselves had worked for due to the tax code. Yet another reason the inheritance tax is a punitive onerous and needless tax.
 
why do people need so much money to be happy? My family barely gets by but everything is fine and we are ok with that. I don't need millions of dollars to be happy.

Having a surplus of money is wise.
For one, if you can't work anymore government disability insurance doesn't cover a similar lifestyle.
If you have a temporary emergency, having the extra cash to cover any losses or repairs is a life saver.

I've been at barely getting by and it blows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom