• 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.
Our Republic was founded on making a more just society than those in Europe from which it had sprung.
If one always uses a simple/simpleton's version of 'fair', we'd be back to a pre-French Revolution or a 'serf-and-castle' distribution of wealth and power.

Death, Taxes, and the American Founders
By Andrew M. Schocket 12/12/10
History News Network

"....Today's debate echoes that of the nation's founders in another, more profound way. Does allowing a small number of families to accumulate great wealth -- increasing from generation to generation -- harm democracy? The United States Constitution's ban on inherited titles met with unanimous approval because of the perceived threat posed by lords and earls to a democratic republic. Similarly, Americans have always understood that establishing a small group of families with seemingly unlimited wealth, social privilege, and political power undermines a fundamental American principle: that all citizens are legally and politically equal.

Some founders wanted to eliminate inheritance entirely. In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that all property be Redistributed every fifty years, because "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." Madison gently pointed out the plan's impracticality. Benjamin Franklin unsuccessfully pushed for the first Pennsylvania constitution to declare Concentrated wealth "a Danger to the happiness of mankind."

At the other end of the spectrum, the Constitutional Convention decided to forbid the English practice of allowing the government to seize the entire estate of a person convicted of treason. They reasoned that the property even of citizens who had committed the highest crimes against the nation should not be wholly confiscated.

But, again like today, most people held views in between. By the 1770s, because of the practices of primogeniture (requiring all property to go to the deceased's first son) and entail (allowing families to will property that could never be divided or sold), along with rich families' penchant for land speculation, about three-quarters of Virginia's good land was owned by only a few hundred families, out of a population of around 400,000. Pressed by the small farmers and landless men on whom it depended for military service, Virginia banned primogeniture and entail in 1777. Virginia reached a compromise: Rich families didn't lose their land, but large estates got Broken up over time, thereby loosening the richest families' grip over Virginia's economy and politics.

So, as with other political issues—even independence itself—Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. But one thing is certain: They hoped to Prevent the emergence of a small group of people with Perpetual wealth and thus Perpetual privilege. Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
Bunch of Socialists eh?
 
Last edited:
Yes, that's one way to look at it. But we can define what is income any way we want to define it, and I'll support StillBallin's explanation over yours.

I wonder about your definition of income. If I give my kid ten bucks to go to the movies, is that $10 income to him? How about if I give him a bowl of oatmeal for breakfast, is that bowl of oatmeal income to him?


Yes, tax every bowl of oatmeal!

You are embracing absurdity.
 
Death, Taxes, and the American Founders
By Andrew M. Schocket 12/12/10
History News Network

Thank you for that post mbig. It certainly gives us a far different impression that those here who want to pretend the opposite about our founders.
 
I tire of the mindset that you and yours are more entitled to other peoples wealth than those that the creator of wealth bequeaths it o

and it is a death tax whether you lovers of that abomination want to deny that.

ANd the rich are paying more of the tax burden now than at any time in the last 50 years because people like you are paying LESS.


The good news is that unions are dying and the sooner they are gone the sooner we can get back to wiping the stain of welfare socialism out of this country

States that impose an estate tax are: Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Source: Taxes by State

I wonder why these state have estate taxes? These are some of the richest per capita states.
 
I am embracing your definition of income.

NO. You are trying to avoid an honest discussion about inheritance by reducing everything to an absurdity like taxing your kids oatmeal. Such tactics are the last refuge of the desperate unable and unwilling to discuss the realities of the issue.
 
You are embracing absurdity.

Aside from degree (a few bucks versus millions of dollars), how is Centinel's example of a father handing his son a few bucks to go to the movies any different from inheritance? The point I've been trying to make here is that inheritance is not income. And neither is a transfer of cash from one individual to another.

Now many folks have been arguing that there should be an estate tax so as to diminish the power of an aristocracy - a class with perpetual wealth and privilege. Though my views have changed on the subject recently, I am not unsympathetic to that viewpoint.

However, to argue that inheritance should be taxed because it is a form of income is simply a faulty argument - because it's not income.
 
I am NOT a fan of the Miami Dolphins, but I think that is was so unfair that several years ago when the owner of the team died, his heirs had to sell the team to pay the death tax.

That's exactly the problem with the inheritance tax. It usurps the right to bequeath away from the person who has died. In the case you cite, the Dolphins owner wanted the team to go to his heirs, but the death tax made that impossible. Cases like this happen all the time, but are not high profile. Families lose their family business. Often the family members have worked there all their lives to build it up without being the actual owner. These businesses ought to be able to continue as they were before the person died.

....What I and TD (and I usually HATE agreeing with TD and other assorted righties) are arguing is that INHERITANCE IS NOT INCOME. ...


It's not income. It's a gift. There is not an exchange of value for services rendered. The person who has died has chosen to give what he has to someone else. Gifts should not be taxable.
 
Aside from degree (a few bucks versus millions of dollars), how is Centinel's example of a father handing his son a few bucks to go to the movies any different from inheritance? The point I've been trying to make here is that inheritance is not income. And neither is a transfer of cash from one individual to another.

The responsibility of a parent to care for and provide for their children is not income and can be excluded from that definition if need be by law. Is that really so hard to contemplate that we can tell the difference between feeding your kids and giving them millions of dollars?
 
That's exactly the problem with the inheritance tax. It usurps the right to bequeath away from the person who has died. In the case you cite, the Dolphins owner wanted the team to go to his heirs, but the death tax made that impossible. Cases like this happen all the time, but are not high profile. Families lose their family business. Often the family members have worked there all their lives to build it up without being the actual owner. These businesses ought to be able to continue as they were before the person died.



It's not income. It's a gift. There is not an exchange of value for services rendered. The person who has died has chosen to give what he has to someone else. Gifts should not be taxable.

100% concur.
 
That's exactly the problem with the inheritance tax. It usurps the right to bequeath away from the person who has died. In the case you cite, the Dolphins owner wanted the team to go to his heirs, but the death tax made that impossible. Cases like this happen all the time, but are not high profile. Families lose their family business. Often the family members have worked there all their lives to build it up without being the actual owner. These businesses ought to be able to continue as they were before the person died.



It's not income. It's a gift. There is not an exchange of value for services rendered. The person who has died has chosen to give what he has to someone else. Gifts should not be taxable.

And currently there is a $5,100,000 exemption for just those purposes. There are also limits for exempting some gifts at certain levels.

So if I had you a large sum of money, you have not had money coming in to enrich you? Regardless if the 5 grand you put in your pocket comes from wages or salary or investments or lottery winnings or inheritance it still looks the same and spends the same and is still 5 grand that you have improved your financial status by.

To get into a game of semantics and verbal gymnastics as to what income is is a denial of the reality of where the money goes and how it enriches the person just like wages do.
 
Last edited:
The responsibility of a parent to care for and provide for their children is not income and can be excluded from that definition if need be by law. Is that really so hard to contemplate that we can tell the difference between feeding your kids and giving them millions of dollars?

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.
 
NO. You are trying to avoid an honest discussion about inheritance by reducing everything to an absurdity like taxing your kids oatmeal. Such tactics are the last refuge of the desperate unable and unwilling to discuss the realities of the issue.
I am examining the principle behind your definition of income. As you said, whenever wealth "comes in" to another person's pocket, that is income. Per your definition, if I give my kid $10 to go to the movies, he has just made $10 of income. If I give my kid a bowl of oatmeal, or a bike, or a car, or a pony, or a yacht, or a private jet, he has received income.
 
And currently there is a $5,100,000 exemption for just those purposes. There are also limits for exempting some gifts at certain levels.
So you are in favor of discriminatory treatment for some types of income?
 
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.

That is because what you are intentionally doing by purposeful design is to format your own definition of INCOME and then claiming that it does not fit the parameters of inheritance. You keep coming back in a circle to your own definition crafted for just that explicit purpose.
 
Source: Taxes by State

I wonder why these state have estate taxes? These are some of the richest per capita states.

So estate taxes make people rich? that seems to be the idiotic conclusion you are suggesting
 
Where did I say that?
Perhaps I jumped to conclusions. When you responded to Luna Tick's problem with the inheritance tax, you wrote:
And currently there is a $5,100,000 exemption for just those purposes. There are also limits for exempting some gifts at certain levels.
So now I have to ask. Were you expressing support for these exemptions, or do you oppose them?
 
That is because what you are intentionally doing by purposeful design is to format your own definition of INCOME and then claiming that it does not fit the parameters of inheritance. You keep coming back in a circle to your own definition crafted for just that explicit purpose.

I didn't craft it. This is Econ 101, **** I learned in high school.
 
Perhaps I jumped to conclusions. When you responded to Luna Tick's problem with the inheritance tax, you wrote:

So now I have to ask. Were you expressing support for these exemptions, or do you oppose them?

He opposes it-he believes it should be taxed the same as income meaning it is the amount of the heirs' wealth rather than the size of the estate that determines the tax rate. Just click on the poll

one person-not an American-believes the government should take everything you own upon your death. Someone who advocated that as a US Politician would have a most brief political careeer
 
Originally Posted by Gary
Source: Taxes by State

I wonder why these state have estate taxes? These are some of the richest per capita states.

So estate taxes make people rich? that seems to be the idiotic conclusion you are suggesting

I'm not responsible for you problems with reading comprehension.

States ranked by per capita income

1.Delaware – $28,766 District of Columbia – $28,659
2.New Jersey – $27,006
3.Massachusetts – $25,952
4.Connecticut – $25,614
5.Colorado – $24,049
6.Florida – $23,975
7.New Hampshire – $23,844
8.New York – $23,389
9.Maryland – $23,305
10.Minnesota – $23,198

Source: List of U.S. states by income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

States that impose an estate tax are: Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Source: Taxes by State

States ranked by per capita income

26.Kansas – $20,506
27.Indiana – $20,397
28.North Carolina – $20,307
29.Arizona – $20,275
30.Missouri – $19,936
31.Iowa – $19,674
32.Texas – $19,617
33.Nebraska – $19,613
34.Maine – $19,367
35.Tennessee – $19,393
36.Wyoming – $19,134
37.South Carolina – $18,795
38.Alabama – $18,189
39.Utah – $18,185
40.Kentucky – $18,093
41.Idaho – $17,841
42.North Dakota – $17,769
43.Oklahoma – $17,646
44.South Dakota – $17,562
45.New Mexico – $17,261
46.Montana – $17,151
47.Louisiana – $16,912
48.Arkansas – $16,904
49.West Virginia – $16,477
50.Mississippi – $15,853

The lower 25 states in per capita income are like a Who's Who of Red states. Since they don't have a state inheritance tax, why hasn't all that wealth accumulation made their economies better?
 
I'm not responsible for you problems with reading comprehension.



Source: List of U.S. states by income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Source: Taxes by State



The lower 25 states in per capita income are like a Who's Who of Red states. Since they don't have a state inheritance tax, why hasn't all that wealth accumulation made their economies better?

You obviously are arguing that a state death tax makes the state more prosperous

that has no basis in fact and you cannot establish cause and effect

death taxes are an abomination.

Ohio had a massive death tax and tons of wealthy Ohioans established tax residency in states like Florida (my Father in Law) or others (My uncle)

that sure helps Ohio doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
as A result Ohio repealed its death tax starting January 1, 2013 to try to stop the loss of high net tax payers who, when they established residency in other states, deprived Ohio of massive amounts of income tax

Welcome to the Ohio Department of Taxation


an interesting story about a person moving out of Ohio to avoid the Ohio death tax


Escaping Ohio's Death Tax | Americans for Prosperity


More important as he neared the end of his life, the former Senator also saved his family from paying Ohio 's death tax, which features one of the highest state rates (7%) and lowest asset thresholds – $338,333 – in the country. Florida famously has no income or estate tax, which is one reason other than the climate that it is home to so many northern-born retirees.

Howard Metzenbaum thus denied the state in which he lived most of his life a parting financial gift. But he has at least provided the rest of us with a teaching moment in tax policy. If a liberal lion like Metzenbaum is willing to relocate late in life to avoid his state's death tax, maybe living politicians in Ohio will better understand how their confiscatory tax laws are driving its citizens to warmer climes.
 
I am examining the principle behind your definition of income. As you said, whenever wealth "comes in" to another person's pocket, that is income. Per your definition, if I give my kid $10 to go to the movies, he has just made $10 of income. If I give my kid a bowl of oatmeal, or a bike, or a car, or a pony, or a yacht, or a private jet, he has received income.

Do they teach this sort of embracement of absurdity at the Von Mises Institute in place of action rational thought? Are you really unable to distinguish between a parent providing food and shelter and clothing for a minor child and a parent giving millions of dollars to a grown child?
 
Do they teach this sort of embracement of absurdity at the Von Mises Institute in place of action rational thought? Are you really unable to distinguish between a parent providing food and shelter and clothing for a minor child and a parent giving millions of dollars to a grown child?

there should be no difference and it should not be something you stick your nose into. your business is what you do for your children and not what I do for mine
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom