• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Bernie Sanders' Socialized Healthcare Plan Would Double The Death Tax . . . and kill babby seals

 
 
 
Why are they calling it the "Death Tax"? You don't pay taxes if you are dead.

Tax on estates and restrictions on what can pass through a will are not taxes on the living. And only living humans (and corporations) are persons.
 
Why are they calling it the "Death Tax"?
Click to expand...

Jesus died for your sins and there shouldn't be taxes on the church and guns and abortion and fiber.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
Why are they calling it the "Death Tax"? You don't pay taxes if you are dead.

Tax on estates and restrictions on what can pass through a will are not taxes on the living. And only living humans (and corporations) are persons.
Click to expand...

The GOP calls it "death tax" because it as proven to be rather inflammatory.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
Why are they calling it the "Death Tax"? You don't pay taxes if you are dead.

Tax on estates and restrictions on what can pass through a will are not taxes on the living. And only living humans (and corporations) are persons.
Click to expand...

If there is a death, then there are taxes that would not result if not for that death.
 
I object to excessive estate taxes.

As soon as people aren't allowed to write off the interest on the mortgages on their houses and as soon as that goddamn child tax credit is eliminated, then I'll feel better about higher estate taxes. We all die. And if you've taken the time to specify a place for your property to go to, then that's the way it should be. But you don't have to buy a house and you don't have to have kids--and so the rest of the country shouldn't have to subsidize your decisions.
 
Excessive being the operative word. These taxes don't affect your average Joe. As I understand it, they don't kick in on 'estates' worth less than five and a half million dollars.
 
Colonel Sanders said:
I object to excessive estate taxes.

As soon as people aren't allowed to write off the interest on the mortgages on their houses and as soon as that goddamn child tax credit is eliminated, then I'll feel better about higher estate taxes. We all die. And if you've taken the time to specify a place for your property to go to, then that's the way it should be. But you don't have to buy a house and you don't have to have kids--and so the rest of the country shouldn't have to subsidize your decisions.
Click to expand...
It's a good thing they aren't excessive
 
Playball40 said:
Colonel Sanders said:
I object to excessive estate taxes.

As soon as people aren't allowed to write off the interest on the mortgages on their houses and as soon as that goddamn child tax credit is eliminated, then I'll feel better about higher estate taxes. We all die. And if you've taken the time to specify a place for your property to go to, then that's the way it should be. But you don't have to buy a house and you don't have to have kids--and so the rest of the country shouldn't have to subsidize your decisions.
Click to expand...
It's a good thing they aren't excessive
Click to expand...

What do you think is excessive?

How is it that the government is entitled to anything from anyone's estate at all? No one is being asked to bear the decedent's or the heir's burden. On the contrary, heirs and assigns often bear the burden of having to pay debts, taxes, and any other obligation the decedent has left behind, often having to do so out of pocket. The government does not and should not be expected to compensate them for that. And that being the case, the government should have no right to collect a single dime from any estate, regardless of size.

And how much of a difference will it make, except to manifest some kind of idealistic punishment on heirs? And that's usually the underlying motivation of those who are so in favor of collecting a totally unrelated dead person's wealth from that person's family--to punish them because their family member has entrusted and rewarded them with the wealth they've earned over their life.
 
Colonel Sanders said:
Playball40 said:
It's a good thing they aren't excessive
Click to expand...

What do you think is excessive?

How is it that the government is entitled to anything from anyone's estate at all? No one is being asked to bear the decedent's or the heir's burden. On the contrary, heirs and assigns often bear the burden of having to pay debts, taxes, and any other obligation the decedent has left behind, often having to do so out of pocket. The government does not and should not be expected to compensate them for that. And that being the case, the government should have no right to collect a single dime from any estate, regardless of size.

And how much of a difference will it make, except to manifest some kind of idealistic punishment on heirs? And that's usually the underlying motivation of those who are so in favor of collecting a totally unrelated dead person's wealth from that person's family--to punish them because their family member has entrusted and rewarded them with the wealth they've earned over their life.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's as complicated as that. The top 0.3% of estate inheritances are in the millions of dollars, so the people who inherit that probably don't have to worry too much about those other expenses, meaning the government can use it as a source of revenue. Progressive taxation targets the places where the most money can be taken with the least impact on the people who lose it. It has nothing to do with punishment; they just take money from there because that's where a lot of money is, and the people they take it from will be just fine without it.
 
Generally speaking, taxes apply not to people (or legal entities), but to transactions - the transfer of money from someone to someone else is taxed.

Estate taxes follow that same pattern; if John Q Billionaire III leaves his wealth to his son, John Q Billionaire IV, then the government can tax that transaction, just as they could have taxed the wages (via income or payroll tax) if father had employed son, or imposed a sales tax if father had purchased something from son.

The money moves from one hand to another, and the government takes a cut - this is not fundamentally different from any other tax in that regard.

If anything, it seems less harsh to tax a windfall (an inheritance or lottery win) that has more to do with luck than effort or value adding, than it is to tax income earned through work, or sales of valued goods.
 
seyorni said:
Excessive being the operative word. These taxes don't affect your average Joe. As I understand it, they don't kick in on 'estates' worth less than five and a half million dollars.
Click to expand...

One of the things he's doing is cutting that from $5.45M to $3.5M.

There is one part of the proposal I really don't like, though--removing the inflation index to provide a stealth tax increase going down the road. All such thresholds in the tax code should be indexed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom