which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

TurtleDude said:

why? justification?

Click to expand...

Encourages spending.

NAKED N00B said:

Encourages spending.

Click to expand...

By government? perhaps- or to get people to buy land and art before they die?

that's not much of a justification

TurtleDude said:

By government? perhaps- or to get people to buy land and art before they die?

that's not much of a justification

Click to expand...

Question: If I run a local restaurant and ten people come in and purchase food and drink totaling $200.00, and several of them work for government and use their government salaries to pay me, how do I know the difference in their money or their impact upon my business?

haymarket said:

Question: If I run a local restaurant and ten people come in and purchase food and drink totaling $200.00, and several of them work for government and use their government salaries to pay me, how do I know the difference in their money or their impact upon my business?

Click to expand...

I cannot see the relevance of that comment to the death tax issue. and taking money from someone so others can buy stuff is not a justification based on your implied theory that the owner or an estate won't spend as much as if the estate had been plundered and given to constiutents of the plunderer

haymarket said:

Question: If I run a local restaurant and ten people come in and purchase food and drink totaling $200.00, and several of them work for government and use their government salaries to pay me, how do I know the difference in their money or their impact upon my business?

Click to expand...

Not knowing they were government employees. How do you know if they work in a government position that is PORKED IN, which has driven up you taxes in more ways than Federal Income Tax, which takes money directly out of your profits and persnal earnings?

Just saying, HM...not trying to side with anybody's position...just responding to your hypothetical situation.

TurtleDude said:

I cannot see the relevance of that comment to the death tax issue. and taking money from someone so others can buy stuff is not a justification based on your implied theory that the owner or an estate won't spend as much as if the estate had been plundered and given to constiutents of the plunderer

Click to expand...

NO. My comment speaks to your previous post which is why I reproduced it. How does money coming from a government source spend or impact differently than money coming from a private source?

As you well know, my justification for estate taxes and getting rid of the 5 million dollar exemptions for them is based on on the reality that money coming into to someones pocket as new revenue should be taxed according to the same tax schedule as income. This would apply to wages, capital gains and inheritance or estate taxes.

Removable Mind said:

Not knowing they were government employees. How do you know if they work in a government position that is PORKED IN, which has driven up you taxes in more ways than Federal Income Tax, which takes money directly out of your profits and persnal earnings?

Just saying, HM...not trying to side with anybody's position...just responding to your hypothetical situation.

Click to expand...

How would anyone attempt to make that determination?

I will concede that in any area of employment, there are people working who perhaps have pork jobs which are net entirely on the up and up. That would be true for government as well as the private sector. Prices of products could also have been driven up by such inefficiencies and waste. No doubt about it. When any of them spends money, there is not way to separate that or its impact upon who gets the money.

Empirica said:

The normal knee-jerk response would be true, but those who have been paying close attention are well aware that it is false.

Government's track record has been to spend every penny it taxes, prints, borrows and steals and is forever seeking more-more-more.

Click to expand...

This, of course, , IN MY OPINION, is absolutely true.
But, its also true that the quality of life for the masses has improved...That is, for my wife and I (both disabled).. ..Now, if we go back in time and see that this is true (which I think it is) we would also see that the wealthy are also better off.
Conclusion , our system is far from perfect, but it does work...
The problem is, there are many who want the system to work better for themselves(greed) and the hell with the others...
This I find to be disgusting !

haymarket said:

How would anyone attempt to make that determination?

I will concede that in any area of employment, there are people working who perhaps have pork jobs which are net entirely on the up and up. That would be true for government as well as the private sector. Prices of products could also have been driven up by such inefficiencies and waste. No doubt about it. When any of them spends money, there is not way to separate that or its impact upon who gets the money.

Click to expand...

On my iPad...without keyboard so my clarity is a bit lacking.

My point is that - no you aren't able to discern the money spent in relationship to people's employment. However, since you injected that some of the customers who spent money at your restaurant were government employees. You're right. There is no way to know if these government employees are porked in and their jobs aren't necessary. But the chances are - simply because they are government employees, they do inflate your tax liabilities, and possibly in more ways than just federal income tax, which therefore affects your net income.

So...they cost you more to serve...technically. :lol:

TurtleDude said:

By government? perhaps- or to get people to buy land and art before they die?

that's not much of a justification

Click to expand...

Private spending.

And I absolutely think it's a justification.

It's consumption; it's spending that makes an economy tick. Hoarding cash leads to an excess of savings, which is a net drag on the economy. Encouraging consumption spending or legitimate investment is a noble goal.

There isn't any distinction to draw between spending through the public sector and spending through the private sector. If there were a Freedom of Information Act that applied to corporations, corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse would be found there to be simply rampant, institutionalized, and openly tolerated. And all of it worked to the significant detriment of consumers -- who are the very same people as the taxpayers, just by the way.

Haymarket's example opens the door to a simple realization though. If you are about average, then 20-25% of what nutjobs try to claim as their own "hard-earned money" was actually the direct or closely indirect result of government spending.

Cardinal Fang said:

There isn't any distinction to draw between spending through the public sector and spending through the private sector. If there were a Freedom of Information Act that applied to corporations, corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse would be found there to be simply rampant, institutionalized, and openly tolerated. And all of it worked to the significant detriment of consumers -- who are the very same people as the taxpayers, just by the way.

Haymarket's example opens the door to a simple realization though. If you are about average, then 20-25% of what nutjobs try to claim as their own "hard-earned money" was actually the direct or closely indirect result of government spending.

Click to expand...

Its amazing the lengths some go to to try to justify taking more money from others

Inheritance money has already been taxed as income and that is why I think it should not be taxed again if the owner passes away.

Tythor Zeth said:

Inheritance money has already been taxed as income and that is why I think it should not be taxed again if the owner passes away.

Click to expand...

It is a NEW owner who is taxed on NEW money coming into their pocket or account that they did not previously have. The fact that somebody else once earned it or acquired it in some manner and paid previous taxes as their own legal obligation is irrelevant. Money is taxed again and again and again and again all the time when it changes hands from one owner to a new owner. That is simply the way money works. The fact that you got your paycheck and paid taxes on it in no way shape or form impacts me when you pay me some of that same money and now it is my income for me to pay my tax obligation upon it. And when I pay it to a third person down the line, they in turn will have their obligation to pay tax upon it. And so on and so on and so on down the line. That is simply the nature of money transferring from one legal owner to the next.

haymarket said:

It is a NEW owner who is taxed on NEW money coming into their pocket or account that they did not previously have. The fact that somebody else once earned it or acquired it in some manner and paid previous taxes as their own legal obligation is irrelevant. Money is taxed again and again and again and again all the time when it changes hands from one owner to a new owner. That is simply the way money works. The fact that you got your paycheck and paid taxes on it in no way shape or form impacts me when you pay me some of that same money and now it is my income for me to pay my tax obligation upon it. And when I pay it to a third person down the line, they in turn will have their obligation to pay tax upon it. And so on and so on and so on down the line. That is simply the nature of money transferring from one legal owner to the next.

Click to expand...

Well, you are talking about paying it to someone else. Yes, if I pay someone to do something for me then that money should be taxed because that's the way it works. Inheritance is not paying it to anyone else, it's giving. If I would decide that I want to give my brother $1000, nothing will be taxed. But suddenly when I die the money somehow has to be taxed? It's a gift. Another example: imagine I told my brother that I was going to buy a car for him. If I would give my brother a new car of, let's say, $25.000, then the money would be taxed, right? After all, you're buying something so it should be taxed. But what if I would die before I could buy him that car, and in my testament, it was clear that I wanted $25.000 of my savings to go to my brother. Then suddenly, it has to be taxed? My brother would want to buy the car I was going to get him, but wait a second, now it gets taxed twice? First he has to pay the inheritance tax and then he also has to pay the taxes for the car! Notice that the car and the money are the same thing: a gift with a net worth of $25.000. But suddenly when I die, it get taxed twice. That's why I feel like inheritance money shouldn't be taxed.

Tythor Zeth said:

Well, you are talking about paying it to someone else. Yes, if I pay someone to do something for me then that money should be taxed because that's the way it works. Inheritance is not paying it to anyone else, it's giving. If I would decide that I want to give my brother $1000, nothing will be taxed. But suddenly when I die the money somehow has to be taxed? It's a gift. Another example: imagine I told my brother that I was going to buy a car for him. If I would give my brother a new car of, let's say, $25.000, then the money would be taxed, right? After all, you're buying something so it should be taxed. But what if I would die before I could buy him that car, and in my testament, it was clear that I wanted $25.000 of my savings to go to my brother. Then suddenly, it has to be taxed? My brother would want to buy the car I was going to get him, but wait a second, now it gets taxed twice? First he has to pay the inheritance tax and then he also has to pay the taxes for the car! Notice that the car and the money are the same thing: a gift with a net worth of $25.000. But suddenly when I die, it get taxed twice. That's why I feel like inheritance money shouldn't be taxed.

Click to expand...

Inheritance is the transfer of money from one owner to a new owner. That makes it new money to the new owner and should be taxed.

As to gifts, the law makes exceptions for gifts and should do that. We certainly do NOT want to get in the silly situation of taxing normal gifts from one person to another. The law can set reasonable limits under which the tad would NOT apply.

As to your example of the inherited money and the purchase of the car with it. How is that any different than me or you earning our wages - which we pay tax upon - and then buying a car which we pay sales tax upon even though it was purchased with the money we already paid taxed upon?

haymarket said:

Inheritance is the transfer of money from one owner to a new owner. That makes it new money to the new owner and should be taxed.

As to gifts, the law makes exceptions for gifts and should do that. We certainly do NOT want to get in the silly situation of taxing normal gifts from one person to another. The law can set reasonable limits under which the tad would NOT apply.

As to your example of the inherited money and the purchase of the car with it. How is that any different than me or you earning our wages - which we pay tax upon - and then buying a car which we pay sales tax upon even though it was purchased with the money we already paid taxed upon?

Click to expand...

Because it isn't earned, it's a gift. So, according to you, I am allowed to buy a car for someone and get taxed only once but when I decide to give him the money to buy one himself instead, it suddenly has to get taxed twice?

Tythor Zeth said:

Because it isn't earned, it's a gift. So, according to you, I am allowed to buy a car for someone and get taxed only once but when I decide to give him the money to buy one himself instead, it suddenly has to get taxed twice?

Click to expand...

You are correct-income is not the same as a gift. There is no transaction involving an exchange for value with a bequeath. It should not be taxed again. And in some cases, such as a grandparent dying and his child and spouse dying tragically shortly thereafter, the government gets two cuts at the same pool of money before it has a chance to regenerate.

its an evil tax and those who argue so vehemently for its continued existence you have to wonder about

Tythor Zeth said:

Because it isn't earned, it's a gift. So, according to you, I am allowed to buy a car for someone and get taxed only once but when I decide to give him the money to buy one himself instead, it suddenly has to get taxed twice?

Click to expand...

You are confusing a sales tax upon the car - which is different than a income tax on my salary or an inheritance tax upon the transfer of wealth. They are two different things. We all pay lots and lots of taxes on different things with the money which is our main source of income that has already been taxed in a different fashion or through a separate tax.

TurtleDude said:

You are correct-income is not the same as a gift. There is no transaction involving an exchange for value with a bequeath. It should not be taxed again. And in some cases, such as a grandparent dying and his child and spouse dying tragically shortly thereafter, the government gets two cuts at the same pool of money before it has a chance to regenerate.

its an evil tax and those who argue so vehemently for its continued existence you have to wonder about

Click to expand...

Again, for a time beyond count, you bring up this "exchange of value" stuff. Where does this come from? Why are you treating it as some rule or law when it is neither? This is the same irrelevancy that has been brought up before and smashed and trashed before. It means nothing.

New money going into someones pocket or account is the same regardless if it is wages, capital gains or inheritance. It is impossible to tell the difference without knowing the source since it looks the same and spends the same. The only difference is the source and the preferential and discriminatory treatment one receives that the other does not receive.

haymarket said:

You are confusing a sales tax upon the car - which is different than a income tax on my salary or an inheritance tax upon the transfer of wealth. They are two different things. We all pay lots and lots of taxes on different things with the money which is our main source of income that has already been taxed in a different fashion or through a separate tax.

Click to expand...

We are talking about the death tax or as you like to charitably call it, the estate tax. There is no federal inheritance tax in the USA federally

haymarket said:

Again, for a time beyond count, you bring up this "exchange of value" stuff. Where does this come from? Why are you treating it as some rule or law when it is neither? This is the same irrelevancy that has been brought up before and smashed and trashed before. It means nothing.

New money going into someones pocket or account is the same regardless if it is wages, capital gains or inheritance. It is impossible to tell the difference without knowing the source since it looks the same and spends the same. The only difference is the source and the preferential and discriminatory treatment one receives that the other does not receive.

Click to expand...

because you are the one who wants to treat a bequeath as income and taxed the same. and I love how you think any receipt of something is "Preferentially treated" unless it is subject to a confiscatory progressive tax rate. Your posts demonstrate that you think the rich should pay higher and higher taxes on anything no matter what it is

TurtleDude said:

because you are the one who wants to treat a bequeath as income and taxed the same.

Click to expand...

I realize this wasn't addressed to me, but I feel the same (that inheritance should just be treated as income) so I thought I'd ask a question.

In your mind, what makes inherited money enough different than money earned as income that it should be treated as a special case in the tax code?

molten_dragon said:

I realize this wasn't addressed to me, but I feel the same (that inheritance should just be treated as income) so I thought I'd ask a question.

In your mind, what makes inherited money enough different than money earned as income that it should be treated as a special case in the tax code?

Click to expand...

IT should have no tax consequences

Tythor - I have a question for you.

Let us take three American citizens.

case #1 is Ed Vogel, a professional athlete who makes $5 million dollars a year in wages. His official tax bracket is 35%. With no deductions, he will pay over $1,600,000 in federal income taxes.
case #2 is Marcie Bundy, she does not work but gets all her income from long term capital gains. She made $5 million dollar this year in long term capital gains. Her tax bracket is 15% and she will pay $750,000 on that same five million that Ed Vogel paid over twice as much on.
case #3 is Mike Shelby, he did not work not had any capital gains but he inherited $5 million from his deceased parent. He pays ZERO, NOTHING, not one thin dime on that amount.

So we have three American citizens, all of which put five million new dolars into their pockets or accounts. It spends the same and looks the same and if nobody told you the source, nobody could tell you the difference if it were in three piles of 5 million dollars each.

But because of preferential treatment and discriminatory laws, one pays nothing on that same five million, one pays out $750,000.00 and the third pays over twice that - assuming that all three have no deductions.

Now here is my question Tythor - why should Ed Vogel, an American citizen and voter be willing to support what just happened to him? And why should every other of the scores of millions of Americans be willing to support such a system that favors others and not themselves?