Nothing says "I'm for meritocracy" more than voting to entirely get rid of the estate tax

[ksen]

The Republican Recipe for Widening Inequality

Separate from the budget plans, nearly all House Republicans and seven Democrats passed a bill last week to repeal the federal estate tax on inherited wealth. Repeal would benefit the 5,500 wealthiest families in America each year and would do nothing for everyone else, because the estate tax applies only to those at the very top of the wealth ladder. For estates valued at $50 million and up, for example, repeal would save the heirs about $20 million per estate, on average, in 2016.

When I first read the headline of this piece I thought it was going to be about a Republican plan to address the problem of inequality. But after rereading it a couple of times, along with the article, I see it's actually about the Republicans doing what they can to make inequality even wider.

I can see how it'd be a hardship to only inherit $30 million instead of $50 million. I mean how do they expect the offspring of job creators to make ends meet?

Also who gets hit by the estate tax?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/estate/who.cfm

According to the above link in 2011 8,600 individuals left estates large enough to qualify for the estate tax. Of those 8,600 people only 3,270 left estates large enough to be taxed after deductions and credits were taken into account.

If that's the case that less than 5,000 indivuals (at least in 2011) actually had to pay any estate taxes then why do the Republicans, and 7 Democrats apparently, have such a hard on for getting rid of it?

I've heard the whole "family farm" and "small business" arguments but in 2011 less than 50 small farms and businesses were effected by the estate tax.

Man, I wish the Republicans would spend as much time and energy working on issues that helped the remaining 311,696,730 of us as they do for the 3,270 that ended up owing the estate tax.

 

[braces_for_impact]

This is exceptionally reprehensible after all that god damn whining over the deficit.

 

[Trausti]

I suppose I understand the position that the federal government shouldn't be able to just take 40% of a person's property. The estate tax is not a tax on income or capital gains. But it's better than the alternative - where the beneficiaries pay. A beneficiary / heir could be put in financial ruin if suddenly saddled with a tax bill for inherited property. Yet, taxing gifts and awards, or windfall income, is already done in other areas; the lottery, games show prizes, etc. Taxing the estate - with the $5M/$10M exemptions - rather than the beneficiary / heir seems a good compromise.

 

[dismal]

I suppose I understand the position that the federal government shouldn't be able to just take 40% of a person's property. The estate tax is not a tax on income or capital gains. But it's better than the alternative - where the beneficiaries pay. A beneficiary / heir could be put in financial ruin if suddenly saddled with a tax bill for inherited property. Yet, taxing gifts and awards, or windfall income, is already done in other areas; the lottery, games show prizes, etc. Taxing the estate - with the $5M/$10M exemptions - rather than the beneficiary / heir seems a good compromise.

Well that makes more sense that Ksen's theory that conservatives support eliminating the estate tax because of Merticracy.

I, for one, didn't even know where Merti was until I looked it up for this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merti

 

[ksen]

goddammit

eta: fixt!

 

[dismal]

You just edited away the entire educational value of the thread.

 

[Ford]

I disagree that they're fighting for a meritocracy.

This is part of their ongoing effort to make certain that the people at the very top of our society pay no taxes whatsoever. The more money you make, the less you should have to pay. And apparently if you don't make any money, and simply inherit your billions, you shouldn't have to pay anything at all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I suppose I understand the position that the federal government shouldn't be able to just take 40% of a person's property. The estate tax is not a tax on income or capital gains.

No, it is a tax aimed at taxing shit that hasn't been taxed much in several decades.

 

[Trausti]

I suppose I understand the position that the federal government shouldn't be able to just take 40% of a person's property. The estate tax is not a tax on income or capital gains.

No, it is a tax aimed at taxing shit that hasn't been taxed much in several decades.

But presumably it was already taxed. I'm not supporting repealing the estate tax as it presently exists, but to say that we'll tax you on what you already own because it's be awhile since we originally taxed you is tyranny. Yeah, you've paid your income tax but we noticed you still have money in your bank account. You thought that belonged to you? Sheesh, come on, don't be silly.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it is a tax aimed at taxing shit that hasn't been taxed much in several decades.

But presumably it was already taxed. I'm not supporting repealing the estate tax as it presently exists, but to say that we'll tax you on what you already own because it's be awhile since we originally taxed you is tyranny. Yeah, you've paid your income tax but we noticed you still have money in your bank account. You thought that belonged to you? Sheesh, come on, don't be silly.

Unrealized capital gains are not taxed now, so eliminating the estate tax means that the inheritor receives a gift that has value that has not been taxed.

Labor income is taxed thrice when it is earned - income and SS and medicare. There is no logical reason to exempt assets on the basis they might have been taxed once in the past.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, it is a tax aimed at taxing shit that hasn't been taxed much in several decades.

But presumably it was already taxed. I'm not supporting repealing the estate tax as it presently exists, but to say that we'll tax you on what you already own because it's be awhile since we originally taxed you is tyranny. Yeah, you've paid your income tax but we noticed you still have money in your bank account. You thought that belonged to you? Sheesh, come on, don't be silly.

Well, then, sales tax is tax on money that was already taxed as well. My income was taxed, and I use my income to buy stuff, and when I buy stuff, my money that was already taxed is being taxed again. Same with just about any tax you can name.

At least with estate tax you can make the case that the person inheriting the estate has not been taxed on that amount yet, so it is less egregious than most other taxes.

 

[Trausti]

But presumably it was already taxed. I'm not supporting repealing the estate tax as it presently exists, but to say that we'll tax you on what you already own because it's be awhile since we originally taxed you is tyranny. Yeah, you've paid your income tax but we noticed you still have money in your bank account. You thought that belonged to you? Sheesh, come on, don't be silly.

Well, then, sales tax is tax on money that was already taxed as well. My income was taxed, and I use my income to buy stuff, and when I buy stuff, my money that was already taxed is being taxed again. Same with just about any tax you can name.

At least with estate tax you can make the case that the person inheriting the estate has not been taxed on that amount yet, so it is less egregious than most other taxes.

But in your scenario, the "taxed again" is because you are engaging in economic activity. And are being taxed differently, to boot. The estate tax arises because you died. The inertia tax. Again, not supporting repeal of the estate tax as is it is now with its exemptions, but for the government to decide it will re-tax you for an asset or activity that you had before paid tax is tyranny.

 

[dismal]

Well, then, sales tax is tax on money that was already taxed as well. My income was taxed, and I use my income to buy stuff, and when I buy stuff, my money that was already taxed is being taxed again. Same with just about any tax you can name.

At least with estate tax you can make the case that the person inheriting the estate has not been taxed on that amount yet, so it is less egregious than most other taxes.

But in your scenario, the "taxed again" is because you are engaging in economic activity. And are being taxed differently, to boot. The estate tax arises because you died. The inertia tax. Again, not supporting repeal of the estate tax as is it is now with its exemptions, but for the government to decide it will re-tax you for an asset or activity that you had before paid tax is tyranny.

Why are you taking their justifications seriously?

They would tax rich people every five minutes for breathing if they could get away with it.

 

[arkirk]

But in your scenario, the "taxed again" is because you are engaging in economic activity. And are being taxed differently, to boot. The estate tax arises because you died. The inertia tax. Again, not supporting repeal of the estate tax as is it is now with its exemptions, but for the government to decide it will re-tax you for an asset or activity that you had before paid tax is tyranny.

Why are you taking their justifications seriously?

They would tax rich people every five minutes for breathing if they could get away with it.

I like your idea, Dismal...tax the bastards every five minutes...till they stop screwing with the pay of their slaves!

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, then, sales tax is tax on money that was already taxed as well. My income was taxed, and I use my income to buy stuff, and when I buy stuff, my money that was already taxed is being taxed again. Same with just about any tax you can name.

At least with estate tax you can make the case that the person inheriting the estate has not been taxed on that amount yet, so it is less egregious than most other taxes.

But in your scenario, the "taxed again" is because you are engaging in economic activity. And are being taxed differently, to boot. The estate tax arises because you died. The inertia tax. Again, not supporting repeal of the estate tax as is it is now with its exemptions, but for the government to decide it will re-tax you for an asset or activity that you had before paid tax is tyranny.

Does it arise because you died, or because someone else died? Dead people have a difficult time doing anything, including paying taxes. It seems to me that those who would receive the estate of the dead person are the ones being taxed, and they have not yet been taxed on that estate. They are also being taxed differently. The estate tax is different than the taxes paid by the previous (and now dead) owner of the estate.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Well, then, sales tax is tax on money that was already taxed as well. My income was taxed, and I use my income to buy stuff, and when I buy stuff, my money that was already taxed is being taxed again. Same with just about any tax you can name.

At least with estate tax you can make the case that the person inheriting the estate has not been taxed on that amount yet, so it is less egregious than most other taxes.

But in your scenario, the "taxed again" is because you are engaging in economic activity. And are being taxed differently, to boot. The estate tax arises because you died. The inertia tax. Again, not supporting repeal of the estate tax as is it is now with its exemptions, but for the government to decide it will re-tax you for an asset or activity that you had before paid tax is tyranny.

Actually I'd call it the "use it or lose it" tax. Moving wealth into the economy is better than hoarding it and giving it to relatives. This tax provides that incentive.

aa

 

[Axulus]

But in your scenario, the "taxed again" is because you are engaging in economic activity. And are being taxed differently, to boot. The estate tax arises because you died. The inertia tax. Again, not supporting repeal of the estate tax as is it is now with its exemptions, but for the government to decide it will re-tax you for an asset or activity that you had before paid tax is tyranny.

Actually I'd call it the "use it or lose it" tax. Moving wealth into the economy is better than hoarding it and giving it to relatives. This tax provides that incentive.

aa

[citation needed]

 

[Axulus]

For the economically ignorant, the following chapter of reading is recommended:

In this chapter we examine the relationship between increases in the capital stock and economic growth. We first discuss whether an economy can always grow if it increases only its capital stock. Under certain plausible assumptions, we show this is not possible, and that poorer countries should therefore grow faster than wealthy ones, whose economies will depend more on technological progress than capital accumulation. We then discuss why countries with high investment rates also have high standards of living. We show that to have a high standard of living a country must, over the long run, have a high level of savings and investment. We then examine why some countries have such low savings rates and whether governments can alter this. Finally we consider the rapid growth of the Southeast Asian economies and the extent to which they have relied on capital accumulation.

http://www.wiley.com/college/miles/0471988456/sample_chapters/ch05.pdf

 

[Trausti]

But in your scenario, the "taxed again" is because you are engaging in economic activity. And are being taxed differently, to boot. The estate tax arises because you died. The inertia tax. Again, not supporting repeal of the estate tax as is it is now with its exemptions, but for the government to decide it will re-tax you for an asset or activity that you had before paid tax is tyranny.

Why are you taking their justifications seriously?

They would tax rich people every five minutes for breathing if they could get away with it.

Yeah, that's seem right. To some taxation is not about governmental necessity but rather punishing those who are more successful. Easier to tear down than build up.

 

[laughing dog]

For the economically ignorant, the following chapter of reading is recommended:

In this chapter we examine the relationship between increases in the capital stock and economic growth. We first discuss whether an economy can always grow if it increases only its capital stock. Under certain plausible assumptions, we show this is not possible, and that poorer countries should therefore grow faster than wealthy ones, whose economies will depend more on technological progress than capital accumulation. We then discuss why countries with high investment rates also have high standards of living. We show that to have a high standard of living a country must, over the long run, have a high level of savings and investment. We then examine why some countries have such low savings rates and whether governments can alter this. Finally we consider the rapid growth of the Southeast Asian economies and the extent to which they have relied on capital accumulation.

http://www.wiley.com/college/miles/0471988456/sample_chapters/ch05.pdf

What does this have to do with estate taxes?