If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Caller)   The House GOP shows its commitment to fiscal conservatism by demanding Bohener schedule a vote to repeal the estate tax, because won't somebody think of the children of billionaires?   (dailycaller.com) divider line 296
    More: Asinine, House GOP, Speaker John Boehner, Tim Bohen, GOP, fiscal conservatives, Buffett Rule, Republican Proposal, estate taxes  
•       •       •

1019 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 May 2012 at 9:36 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



296 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-01 11:14:06 AM

EWreckedSean: For those pro-estate tax, I have a few issues I'd like to address.

1) Estate taxes kicks in at a set rate. If I have $4,999,999 in assets when I die, no tax. If I have $5,000,001 when i die, I get taxed (up to 45% if the left has it's way). If I own a business, what incentive do I have to grow it once my assets reach near the $5 million mark, knowing my heirs will be raped by taxes if I do.

2) Is large corporate farming better than smaller family owned farming. If I die, and my farm has $6,000,000 in capital (farm equipment is expensive), what chance is there for my heirs to keep the farm afloat if the government sends them a tax bill for almost $3 million dollars on my death?

3) Since many other nations have a 0% estate tax, in old age, what value us there in me keeping my wealth in the US when I can move it offshore where it is safe from this 45% taxation?


Are you really going to continue to misunderstand how tax rates wrok in every fark thread you post in?

If you have an estate of $4,999,999 you are correct, you owe no tax. if your estate is 5,000,001 you do indeed owe a tax, ON ONE DOLLAR or even at the highest tax rate, $0.35 in taxes.
 
2012-05-01 11:14:20 AM

EWreckedSean: lennavan: DamnYankees: EWreckedSean: Sorry, clarify, the tax is on the assets over $5 million.

Which clarification entirely undermines that entire point. This wasn't a typo, you clearly didn't understand the tax.

Yep. Your clarification completely nullified the point you were attempting to make. Tell you what EWreckedSean, this is an enormous opportunity for you and I will walk you through it. Apologize, admit your mistake, admit it completely nullified your point and change your conclusion to come into agreement with the people you were arguing with. The amount of respect you will gain will last you weeks if not months. I mean, we're talking increased your reply counts for weeks by the dozens if not hundreds because people will recall you were willing to change your mind so they'll try so much harder next time.

Alternatively, derp on my friend.

Sure, I made a mistake, realized it, and corrected. But the point remains the same largely.

What incentives do I have to keep any wealthy above $5,000,000 in the US if I am older when I can offshore said wealth to countries that won't tax it. And if my heirs are going to receive a huge tax bill on the capital on farms over $5 million, what chance do my heirs have on keeping a farm going?


Damn man, just stop.

Are you one of those people that proudly announced they turned down a raise so they could avoid taxes?
 
2012-05-01 11:15:12 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: Why is it that Republicans have a problem with taxing people worth over $1 million after they die? It's almost like they depend on rich friends to get elected or something.


Because family farms and businesses often have an assessed worth over a million dollars.

Think about what it takes to generate a $50,000 salary in terms of ROI and you will see why taking half of it when the owner dies so the next generation can't do that job anymore. It's evil to rob people of their livelihood.

Oh, and guess who buys those farms and livestock? Hint: they don't die and they hire people using the same capital investment the family did.
 
2012-05-01 11:16:18 AM

spiderpaz: I don't have a citation from a news article, but he's correct that this is happening to family farms all over the place. My family has a ranch in CA that's 7k acres that my father and uncle own which is worth 8 - 12 million (depending on whether you can find someone willing to pay).


You are completely wrong.

Land value taxation for estates doesn't go by some real estate appraiser's value. It goes by the tax assessed value of the land - which for farms is almost nothing. Land that might sell for $10M would have an assessed value around $50k. And because a farm is a business all of the tools/machines/assets are depreciated - so don't expect a huge quantity of material assets based upon ten year old tractors and trucks.
However, money in the bank or investments are accounted for at full value - so if grandpa has a pile of money socked away you might still be paying an Estate Tax someday, but the ranch itself isn't going to be assessed at such a high value by the tax man.
 
2012-05-01 11:17:30 AM

lennavan: No, it really doesn't. The point you were making was completely nullified by your correction.

EWreckedSean: What incentives do I have to keep any wealthy above $5,000,000 in the US if I am older when I can offshore said wealth to countries that won't tax it.

This wasn't your point at all. Dude, you had an opportunity here and you just blew it.


Reading isn't your friend...

EWreckedSean: "3) Since many other nations have a 0% estate tax, in old age, what value us there in me keeping my wealth in the US when I can move it offshore where it is safe from this 45% taxation?"
 
2012-05-01 11:18:06 AM

Magorn: EWreckedSean: For those pro-estate tax, I have a few issues I'd like to address.

1) Estate taxes kicks in at a set rate. If I have $4,999,999 in assets when I die, no tax. If I have $5,000,001 when i die, I get taxed (up to 45% if the left has it's way). If I own a business, what incentive do I have to grow it once my assets reach near the $5 million mark, knowing my heirs will be raped by taxes if I do.

2) Is large corporate farming better than smaller family owned farming. If I die, and my farm has $6,000,000 in capital (farm equipment is expensive), what chance is there for my heirs to keep the farm afloat if the government sends them a tax bill for almost $3 million dollars on my death?

3) Since many other nations have a 0% estate tax, in old age, what value us there in me keeping my wealth in the US when I can move it offshore where it is safe from this 45% taxation?

Are you really going to continue to misunderstand how tax rates wrok in every fark thread you post in?

If you have an estate of $4,999,999 you are correct, you owe no tax. if your estate is 5,000,001 you do indeed owe a tax, ON ONE DOLLAR or even at the highest tax rate, $0.35 in taxes.


I already said I was mistaken and corrected this.
 
2012-05-01 11:18:10 AM

EWreckedSean: For those pro-estate tax, I have a few issues I'd like to address.

1) Estate taxes kicks in at a set rate. If I have $4,999,999 in assets when I die, no tax. If I have $5,000,001 when i die, I get taxed (up to 45% if the left has it's way). If I own a business, what incentive do I have to grow it once my assets reach near the $5 million mark, knowing my heirs will be raped by taxes if I do.


Well, would you rather pass on $4,999,999 to your heirs, or $5,000,000.55?
 
2012-05-01 11:20:21 AM

AncientLurker: HotWingConspiracy: That's what I'm saying. Can you even gas up a yacht with that? Slap me 5, bro! 5 million that is, LOL. No but seriously, it's funny that poors think five million is real money

I lol'd, good one.
5M wont even get you a Senate seat.


Running for office does not have a great ROI. Giving bribes campaign contributions on the other hand has a fantastic ROI, and is surprisingly cheap - your average rep will whore himself out for all but the most perverted legislative acts for only a few thousand bucks a pop. Senators are a slightly higher class of hooker but with 5 million to hand out you can still get get some fairly serious legislation through both houses, particularly if you don't make too much noise about it
 
2012-05-01 11:22:38 AM

AncientLurker: Leaving you 30k/year to reinvest. Walla.


So your point is that if you live in certain areas and spend ridiculous amounts of money, $5 million will only leave you with as much to INVEST every years as most households have in TOTAL income? That's your argument for why $5 million isn't a lot?
 
2012-05-01 11:22:38 AM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: AncientLurker: HotWingConspiracy: That's what I'm saying. Can you even gas up a yacht with that? Slap me 5, bro! 5 million that is, LOL. No but seriously, it's funny that poors think five million is real money

I lol'd, good one.
5M wont even get you a Senate seat.

Running for office does not have a great ROI. Giving bribes campaign contributions on the other hand has a fantastic ROI, and is surprisingly cheap - your average rep will whore himself out for all but the most perverted legislative acts for only a few thousand bucks a pop. Senators are a slightly higher class of hooker but with 5 million to hand out you can still get get some fairly serious legislation through both houses, particularly if you don't make too much noise about it


It probably depends largely on who is opposing your efforts.
 
2012-05-01 11:23:56 AM

EWreckedSean: lennavan: No, it really doesn't. The point you were making was completely nullified by your correction.

EWreckedSean: What incentives do I have to keep any wealthy above $5,000,000 in the US if I am older when I can offshore said wealth to countries that won't tax it.

This wasn't your point at all. Dude, you had an opportunity here and you just blew it.

Reading isn't your friend...

EWreckedSean: "3) Since many other nations have a 0% estate tax, in old age, what value us there in me keeping my wealth in the US when I can move it offshore where it is safe from this 45% taxation?"



Lost opportunity man. Best advice I have for you now is to just leave the thread and don't look back. You can't make things better, the best you can hope for is to not make things worse.
 
2012-05-01 11:28:31 AM
As a person who is looking to inherit a family farm that is worth several million dollars, I can assure you that anyone who is able to own and operate a farm of that size is also smart enough to set up a trust to protect it. Only the stupidest families would ever lose their farms, even if the cap dropped to $0. And they'd probably lose the farm anyway.
 
2012-05-01 11:34:29 AM
Excuse my ignorance: does the estate tax hit every asset transferred or just property? Because by the time someone dies, it's not very uncommon for them to have amassed a million dollars of net worth. Those people aren't "rich," their entire lives have gotten them to the 1 million dollar number. Not sure there is an "across the board" sweeping solution to this issue.

Sweet. Loopholes and thousands of pages of bullshiat.
 
2012-05-01 11:35:02 AM

DamnYankees: RichieLaw: now because I have a personal opinion on the estate tax being too large, I'm implied to be a 1% apologist.

Maybe you should start some introspection then - don't you think its a bit odd you're way out of character on this issue? It's wholly inconsistent with your other proclaimed beliefs.


I'm not sure its inconsistent. I advocate tax systems that I believe are fair. I'm working from my beliefs and opinions, which do not seem to conflict with this issue.

You can have fair taxation without taking 35 or 55% of someone's estate.
 
2012-05-01 11:38:09 AM
Like I said, my post about 5M not being a lot of money may have been a bit flippant, but you aren't going to be picking up a G5 or even Netjets with that cash.Probably not even a second home. You can certainly live well and travel, I guess my point is more that 5M isn't worth what it used to be time value of money and all that stuff. I would say that the definition of rich is a few million bucks, but wealthy is basically defined at 30M+. A porsche 911 is going to run you almost 2K/month, but I would think if you can afford one you would pay cash for it anyways.
 
2012-05-01 11:38:29 AM

daveUSMC: Excuse my ignorance: does the estate tax hit every asset transferred or just property? Because by the time someone dies, it's not very uncommon for them to have amassed a million dollars of net worth. Those people aren't "rich," their entire lives have gotten them to the 1 million dollar number. Not sure there is an "across the board" sweeping solution to this issue.

Sweet. Loopholes and thousands of pages of bullshiat.


There's a $5 million exemption on all estates; if your estate is worth less than $5 million, there is no tax liability.

RichieLaw: I'm not sure its inconsistent. I advocate tax systems that I believe are fair. I'm working from my beliefs and opinions, which do not seem to conflict with this issue.

You can have fair taxation without taking 35 or 55% of someone's estate.


Transactions are taxed. Why should this specific type of transaction be treated differently than other types of transactions when it comes to taxation?
 
2012-05-01 11:40:43 AM
Keep 'em moving, keep 'em moving.

www.biopoliticaltimes.org

/so predictable
 
2012-05-01 11:45:14 AM

EWreckedSean: 1) Estate taxes kicks in at a set rate. If I have $4,999,999 in assets when I die, no tax. If I have $5,000,001 when i die, I get taxed (up to 45% if the left has it's way). If I own a business, what incentive do I have to grow it once my assets reach near the $5 million mark, knowing my heirs will be raped by taxes if I do.


WTF IS THIS.

Obama needs to sign a new executive order:

ALL REPUBLICANS MUST TAKE CLASSES ON HOW TAXES WORK.
 
2012-05-01 11:45:32 AM
I think the argument for estate tax in terms of trying to avoid creating an oligarchy class is bs. It does nothing to stop massive wealth transfer due to loop holes, and the uber-class already exists. Doesn't the top 1% own 80% of this country or something like that. The estate tax is a federal money grab and the moral argument for it is bs. But so is the "job creators" argument.
 
2012-05-01 11:45:52 AM

daveUSMC: Excuse my ignorance: does the estate tax hit every asset transferred or just property? Because by the time someone dies, it's not very uncommon for them to have amassed a million dollars of net worth. Those people aren't "rich," their entire lives have gotten them to the 1 million dollar number. Not sure there is an "across the board" sweeping solution to this issue.

Sweet. Loopholes and thousands of pages of bullshiat.


In your example, you would pay 0$ in estate tax. Your first $5 million is exempt. So we're crying super hard about taxing money after the first $5 million gets passed down tax free.
 
2012-05-01 11:46:39 AM

AncientLurker: The estate tax is a federal money grab


The estate tax is a tax on a transaction like every other tax.
 
2012-05-01 11:49:18 AM

NateGrey: EWreckedSean: 1) Estate taxes kicks in at a set rate. If I have $4,999,999 in assets when I die, no tax. If I have $5,000,001 when i die, I get taxed (up to 45% if the left has it's way). If I own a business, what incentive do I have to grow it once my assets reach near the $5 million mark, knowing my heirs will be raped by taxes if I do.

WTF IS THIS.

Obama needs to sign a new executive order:

ALL REPUBLICANS MUST TAKE CLASSES ON HOW TAXES WORK.


I'm gonna second this but extend it to all voters. Alternatively, I'd like to see a quiz preceding your voting ballot. You take the quiz and then you vote. Your vote is then tallied as follows:

(1 + (number of correct answers)) = number of votes for each candidate you selected.

If you know nothing, you still get a vote. If you know a lot, your vote counts way more than the derpfarkingtarded people.
 
2012-05-01 11:49:43 AM

qorkfiend: The estate tax is a tax on a transaction like every other tax


Then why isn't it a more reasonable tax, how about 0$ exemption and use the capital gains tax. Problem solved, I would think that eliminating loop holes with a decreased tax amount would raise revenues for the feds.
 
2012-05-01 11:51:31 AM

qorkfiend: RichieLaw: HotWingConspiracy: RichieLaw: I just feel it is an issue of fairness.

I too hope that one day the wealthy in this country get a fair shake. They've suffered enough.

Wow, this is an incredible feeling for me. I've protested with the Occupy movement, given them legal advice, called my Senators and Congresspersons over social and tax issues trying to affect some change for those less fortunate than me, and now because I have a personal opinion on the estate tax being too large, I'm implied to be a 1% apologist.

Awesome.

You know, because equality and fairness are only for those with no money. . .

When you're advocating for a tax break that is, by definition, for the children of millionaires, don't be surprised when people react as if you're advocating a tax break for the children of millionaires.


Just because people have money doesn't mean they should have to give it all away. They should pay fair taxes that can establish services to help those less fortunate as part of their social contract. They should not be made to give up a large portion of their wealth just because they happen to be wealthy.

Fairness is about standards being applied to all in an equal manner. No favoritism, not to the poor, and especially not to the rich.

HotWingConspiracy: RichieLaw: HotWingConspiracy: RichieLaw: I just feel it is an issue of fairness.

I too hope that one day the wealthy in this country get a fair shake. They've suffered enough.

Wow, this is an incredible feeling for me. I've protested with the Occupy movement, given them legal advice, called my Senators and Congresspersons over social and tax issues trying to affect some change for those less fortunate than me, and now because I have a personal opinion on the estate tax being too large, I'm implied to be a 1% apologist.

Awesome.

You know, because equality and fairness are only for those with no money. . .

I don't really care about your pedigree, the rich have experienced plenty of "fairness" in their time on this earth. And there isn't anything inherently unfair about taxing their heir's income.


So the American dream is to punish those who are successful? Sounds about right.

Karac: RichieLaw: All good points! I can't say you're wrong. I think that the estate tax (at 35 or 55%) is too large at this time. Its a personal opinion and a subjective one. I think that we all need to pay taxes, I do not have a problem with that at all, but make the estate tax in line with ordinary income.

Well, ordinary federal income tax reaches the 35% mark at around $400,000 for an individual, whereas the current debate is over whether to have any inheritance at all taxed at that rate starting at either 1 million or 5 million. Are we to understand that you would rather lowering the estate tax down to starting at $400,000?


That's a very good argument. I'm confused.

If I look at my opinions on the matter, I believe that the estate tax at 35% is high, but the estate tax at 55% is much too high. But, if 35% is the high income tax for amounts of 400k and higher, then it is fair to tax at that rate for the estate tax given the $5 million exemption.

Thanks. Had to work through that.
 
2012-05-01 11:52:19 AM

AncientLurker: qorkfiend: The estate tax is a tax on a transaction like every other tax

Then why isn't it a more reasonable tax, how about 0$ exemption and use the capital gains tax. Problem solved, I would think that eliminating loop holes with a decreased tax amount would raise revenues for the feds.


Dude, you'll be dead. Why do you care if it is reasonable or not?
 
2012-05-01 11:54:02 AM

RichieLaw: So the American dream is to punish those who are successful? Sounds about right.


Dude, you'll be dead. How is anything a punishment after you are dead? And how is taxing you after you are dead instead of while you are alive a punishment?

Ridiculous.
 
2012-05-01 11:54:04 AM

AncientLurker: qorkfiend: The estate tax is a tax on a transaction like every other tax

Then why isn't it a more reasonable tax, how about 0$ exemption and use the capital gains tax. Problem solved, I would think that eliminating loop holes with a decreased tax amount would raise revenues for the feds.


Well, if we're trying to inject reason into the tax code...

Eliminating loopholes with a lower rate probably would raise revenue. It's politically easier to just tweak rates and the exemption amount, I would think.
 
2012-05-01 11:54:27 AM

AncientLurker: qorkfiend: The estate tax is a tax on a transaction like every other tax

Then why isn't it a more reasonable tax, how about 0$ exemption and use the capital gains tax. Problem solved, I would think that eliminating loop holes with a decreased tax amount would raise revenues for the feds.


I don't think that is fair as it would unfairly impact non-wealthy persons. You would have small estates being taxed at the same rate as wealthy estates thus depriving poor and middle class families of a higher share of estate income.
 
2012-05-01 11:56:11 AM

lennavan: RichieLaw: So the American dream is to punish those who are successful? Sounds about right.

Dude, you'll be dead. How is anything a punishment after you are dead? And how is taxing you after you are dead instead of while you are alive a punishment?

Ridiculous.


So you don't consider creating wealth for the benefit of your children and heirs to be important at all?
 
2012-05-01 11:58:38 AM

RichieLaw: lennavan: RichieLaw: So the American dream is to punish those who are successful? Sounds about right.

Dude, you'll be dead. How is anything a punishment after you are dead? And how is taxing you after you are dead instead of while you are alive a punishment?

Ridiculous.

So you don't consider creating wealth for the benefit of your children and heirs to be important at all?


It certainly shouldn't be immune from taxation. Why should it be?
 
2012-05-01 11:59:48 AM

EWreckedSean: lennavan: No, it really doesn't. The point you were making was completely nullified by your correction.

EWreckedSean: What incentives do I have to keep any wealthy above $5,000,000 in the US if I am older when I can offshore said wealth to countries that won't tax it.

This wasn't your point at all. Dude, you had an opportunity here and you just blew it.

Reading isn't your friend...

EWreckedSean: "3) Since many other nations have a 0% estate tax, in old age, what value us there in me keeping my wealth in the US when I can move it offshore where it is safe from this 45% taxation?"


Two reasons:
1. US citizens are taxed on their worldwide income. So if I receive an inheritance, I pay taxes on it no matter where it is. And
2. Patriotism
 
2012-05-01 12:00:19 PM

RichieLaw: I don't think that is fair as it would unfairly impact non-wealthy persons. You would have small estates being taxed at the same rate as wealthy estates thus depriving poor and middle class families of a higher share of estate income


Aha, that is a very good point. So a 0$ exemption wouldn't work, though it would raise revenues. One thing does seem odd to me though, the political ruling class, and those that pay/support/donate to them all have skin in the game. Isn't it in their own self-interest to raise the exemption and lower the rate?
 
2012-05-01 12:00:48 PM

qorkfiend: RichieLaw: lennavan: RichieLaw: So the American dream is to punish those who are successful? Sounds about right.

Dude, you'll be dead. How is anything a punishment after you are dead? And how is taxing you after you are dead instead of while you are alive a punishment?

Ridiculous.

So you don't consider creating wealth for the benefit of your children and heirs to be important at all?

It certainly shouldn't be immune from taxation. Why should it be?


I don't think I ever argued for that.
 
2012-05-01 12:02:28 PM

RichieLaw: Just because people have money doesn't mean they should have to give it all away. They should pay fair taxes that can establish services to help those less fortunate as part of their social contract.


No one is advocating a 100% inheritance tax, but thanks anyway.

If they should pay "fair taxes", then an estate tax rate that's in line with the top income tax rate would probably work the best. Oh, it's already there? How about that.
 
2012-05-01 12:02:59 PM

AncientLurker: RichieLaw: I don't think that is fair as it would unfairly impact non-wealthy persons. You would have small estates being taxed at the same rate as wealthy estates thus depriving poor and middle class families of a higher share of estate income

Aha, that is a very good point. So a 0$ exemption wouldn't work, though it would raise revenues. One thing does seem odd to me though, the political ruling class, and those that pay/support/donate to them all have skin in the game. Isn't it in their own self-interest to raise the exemption and lower the rate?


Absolutely. Which is why our political process is broken. It is not what is best for America or Americans, but what is best for ME that rules Washington.
 
2012-05-01 12:04:20 PM

RichieLaw: lennavan: RichieLaw: So the American dream is to punish those who are successful? Sounds about right.

Dude, you'll be dead. How is anything a punishment after you are dead? And how is taxing you after you are dead instead of while you are alive a punishment?

Ridiculous.

So you don't consider creating wealth for the benefit of your children and heirs to be important at all?


Just a FYI - you just moved the goalposts from "punishing you" to "punishing your kids." I noticed. I'm pretty sure my kids can have a pretty nice life with $5 million. It was super smart of them to be born to me and not a poor person too, so they deserve a larger inheritance.
 
2012-05-01 12:04:45 PM

qorkfiend: RichieLaw: Just because people have money doesn't mean they should have to give it all away. They should pay fair taxes that can establish services to help those less fortunate as part of their social contract.

No one is advocating a 100% inheritance tax, but thanks anyway.

If they should pay "fair taxes", then an estate tax rate that's in line with the top income tax rate would probably work the best. Oh, it's already there? How about that.


So then what is your opinion of it going up to 55% with only a 1 million exemption?
 
2012-05-01 12:05:02 PM

RichieLaw: qorkfiend: RichieLaw: lennavan: RichieLaw: So the American dream is to punish those who are successful? Sounds about right.

Dude, you'll be dead. How is anything a punishment after you are dead? And how is taxing you after you are dead instead of while you are alive a punishment?

Ridiculous.

So you don't consider creating wealth for the benefit of your children and heirs to be important at all?

It certainly shouldn't be immune from taxation. Why should it be?

I don't think I ever argued for that.


I love the idea that the children of the rich are "successful" and we shouldn't punish them by taxing them on money they got just for being born.
 
2012-05-01 12:05:15 PM

RichieLaw: qorkfiend: RichieLaw: lennavan: RichieLaw: So the American dream is to punish those who are successful? Sounds about right.

Dude, you'll be dead. How is anything a punishment after you are dead? And how is taxing you after you are dead instead of while you are alive a punishment?

Ridiculous.

So you don't consider creating wealth for the benefit of your children and heirs to be important at all?

It certainly shouldn't be immune from taxation. Why should it be?

I don't think I ever argued for that.


Then what are you arguing for?
 
2012-05-01 12:07:11 PM

lennavan: RichieLaw: lennavan: RichieLaw: So the American dream is to punish those who are successful? Sounds about right.

Dude, you'll be dead. How is anything a punishment after you are dead? And how is taxing you after you are dead instead of while you are alive a punishment?

Ridiculous.

So you don't consider creating wealth for the benefit of your children and heirs to be important at all?

Just a FYI - you just moved the goalposts from "punishing you" to "punishing your kids." I noticed. I'm pretty sure my kids can have a pretty nice life with $5 million. It was super smart of them to be born to me and not a poor person too, so they deserve a larger inheritance.


Not at all. One theme through all my posts has been advocating for the heirs and children of the deceased. I don't find anything specifically disgusting about it. I find the fact that millionares and billionares have an effective tax rate of 10-15% to be disgusting. The fact that they gained wealth, whether through hard work or inheritance, not so much.
 
2012-05-01 12:07:24 PM

RichieLaw: qorkfiend: RichieLaw: Just because people have money doesn't mean they should have to give it all away. They should pay fair taxes that can establish services to help those less fortunate as part of their social contract.

No one is advocating a 100% inheritance tax, but thanks anyway.

If they should pay "fair taxes", then an estate tax rate that's in line with the top income tax rate would probably work the best. Oh, it's already there? How about that.

So then what is your opinion of it going up to 55% with only a 1 million exemption?


Since I'd like to see higher tax brackets for income, I have no problem with that. There'll be some sort of fix before then to keep the rate lower and the exemption higher, probably.
 
2012-05-01 12:07:40 PM

qorkfiend: RichieLaw: qorkfiend: RichieLaw: lennavan: RichieLaw: So the American dream is to punish those who are successful? Sounds about right.

Dude, you'll be dead. How is anything a punishment after you are dead? And how is taxing you after you are dead instead of while you are alive a punishment?

Ridiculous.

So you don't consider creating wealth for the benefit of your children and heirs to be important at all?

It certainly shouldn't be immune from taxation. Why should it be?

I don't think I ever argued for that.

Then what are you arguing for?


Are you arguing that your kids are so dumb and bad with money that $5 million dollars isn't enough of a starting point?
 
2012-05-01 12:07:56 PM

EWreckedSean: For those pro-estate tax, I have a few issues I'd like to address.

1) Estate taxes kicks in at a set rate. If I have $4,999,999 in assets when I die, no tax. If I have $5,000,001 when i die, I get taxed (up to 45% if the left has it's way). If I own a business, what incentive do I have to grow it once my assets reach near the $5 million mark, knowing my heirs will be raped by taxes if I do.


I think in your hypothetical you are taxed .35% of the $1 over the $5Million or in other words $.35. You would be left with $5,000,000.65, what a tough life you would need to live in the USA.


If you left a $10Million estate the tax would be 1.750 Mill leaving you with $8.25Mill. I am sorry that you could not live on that.
 
2012-05-01 12:08:35 PM

RichieLaw: One theme through all my posts has been advocating for the heirs and children of the deceased.


RichieLaw: The fact that they gained wealth, whether through hard work or inheritance, not so much.


The children and heirs gained nothing from work; they gained everything from being born into the right family.
 
2012-05-01 12:08:43 PM

RichieLaw: The fact that they gained wealth, whether through hard work or inheritance, not so much.


You find something noble or worthy about being handed millions of dollars as an accident of birth? Why should this particular transaction be exempted from taxation?
 
2012-05-01 12:10:48 PM
Did anyone catch on that pkellmey is a troll yet?

P kell mey
Please Kill Me

/taadaa!
 
2012-05-01 12:11:13 PM

qorkfiend: RichieLaw: qorkfiend: RichieLaw: lennavan: RichieLaw: So the American dream is to punish those who are successful? Sounds about right.

Dude, you'll be dead. How is anything a punishment after you are dead? And how is taxing you after you are dead instead of while you are alive a punishment?

Ridiculous.

So you don't consider creating wealth for the benefit of your children and heirs to be important at all?

It certainly shouldn't be immune from taxation. Why should it be?

I don't think I ever argued for that.

Then what are you arguing for?


Fair taxes. For everyone.

Granted, in one of my posts above, I conceded that this conversation has changed my opinion somewhat on the issue. After the discussion, I do think that 35% is fair as it is inline with normal income. RichieLaw:
 
2012-05-01 12:11:56 PM

lennavan: EWreckedSean: lennavan: No, it really doesn't. The point you were making was completely nullified by your correction.

EWreckedSean: What incentives do I have to keep any wealthy above $5,000,000 in the US if I am older when I can offshore said wealth to countries that won't tax it.

This wasn't your point at all. Dude, you had an opportunity here and you just blew it.

Reading isn't your friend...

EWreckedSean: "3) Since many other nations have a 0% estate tax, in old age, what value us there in me keeping my wealth in the US when I can move it offshore where it is safe from this 45% taxation?"

Lost opportunity man. Best advice I have for you now is to just leave the thread and don't look back. You can't make things better, the best you can hope for is to not make things worse.


Wow, you just continue to:

bloggingblue.com

Don't you?
 
2012-05-01 12:13:28 PM

magusdevil: EWreckedSean: lennavan: No, it really doesn't. The point you were making was completely nullified by your correction.

EWreckedSean: What incentives do I have to keep any wealthy above $5,000,000 in the US if I am older when I can offshore said wealth to countries that won't tax it.

This wasn't your point at all. Dude, you had an opportunity here and you just blew it.

Reading isn't your friend...

EWreckedSean: "3) Since many other nations have a 0% estate tax, in old age, what value us there in me keeping my wealth in the US when I can move it offshore where it is safe from this 45% taxation?"

Two reasons:
1. US citizens are taxed on their worldwide income. So if I receive an inheritance, I pay taxes on it no matter where it is. And
2. Patriotism


You do understand what an Estate tax is don't you? There is no citizen to tax...
 
2012-05-01 12:14:05 PM

RichieLaw: Absolutely. Which is why our political process is broken. It is not what is best for America or Americans, but what is best for ME that rules Washington


Agreed. The system is broken. The way it actually works, that is if the reality ever got out, people from both sides of the aisle would take to the streets. It is all for sale. Both parties have an interesting system currently. As a congressmen or senator, you can get a chair or committee appointment based on how much money you generate in contributions for your party. As an example, I would need to raise 500K for a small House committee seat, or more than 1M to get on the Armed Services committee, I think to be speaker, you have to raise 25M (that may have changed over the years). That is how our current system works, so buying influence both as a politician and as a wealthy donor (with my own agenda) is the norm for our political process. The days of a true representative democracy (the will of the people) are gone.

/some guy from dc.
 
Displayed 50 of 296 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report