Throw Momma from the Train

[jonottawa]

Well, it's December 31, 2009, so you all know what that means.

 

Yes, it's the day before uber rich people (well, Americans) can die and leave their vast wealth to their spawn tax free. (If massive inherited wealth doesn't make you all warm and tingly, well you're just not patriotic enough.)

 

Bet those life support machines are in short supply. I wonder if there will be a rash of murders/suicides (murders early in 2010 and suicides in December, presumably.)

[jdonn]

Ok I'll admit it, I don't understand...

[Hanoi5]

I understand if there is some kind of law in the US that will allow a tax free inheritance from someone dying on January 1st. Otherwise, OP is already intoxicated...with the holiday...

[Lobowolf]

Well, it's December 31, 2009, so you all know what that means.

 

Yes, it's the day before uber rich people (well, Americans) can die and leave their vast wealth to their spawn tax free. (If massive inherited wealth doesn't make you all warm and tingly, well you're just not patriotic enough.)

 

Bet those life support machines are in short supply. I wonder if there will be a rash of murders/suicides (murders early in 2010 and suicides in December, presumably.)

You can do what you want with your money while you're alive, including giving to people whom you care about. Why on earth should the government be entitled to it, or a huge chunk of it, just because you died?

[jdonn]

Well, it's December 31, 2009, so you all know what that means.

 

Yes, it's the day before uber rich people (well, Americans) can die and leave their vast wealth to their spawn tax free.  (If massive inherited wealth doesn't make you all warm and tingly, well you're just not patriotic enough.)

 

Bet those life support machines are in short supply.  I wonder if there will be a rash of murders/suicides (murders early in 2010 and suicides in December, presumably.)

You can do what you want with your money while you're alive, including giving to people whom you care about. Why on earth should the government be entitled to it, or a huge chunk of it, just because you died?

As weird as it sounds, I think it's good to create an incentive for people to not die.

[mike777]

Well, it's December 31, 2009, so you all know what that means.

 

Yes, it's the day before uber rich people (well, Americans) can die and leave their vast wealth to their spawn tax free.  (If massive inherited wealth doesn't make you all warm and tingly, well you're just not patriotic enough.)

 

Bet those life support machines are in short supply.  I wonder if there will be a rash of murders/suicides (murders early in 2010 and suicides in December, presumably.)

You can do what you want with your money while you're alive, including giving to people whom you care about. Why on earth should the government be entitled to it, or a huge chunk of it, just because you died?

Keep in mind if you gift money, a gift tax must be paid. So the govt is entitled to its cut even if you are alive. :P

 

Estate taxes are just a form of the gift tax.

 

 

Of course you paid taxes if earned income and you pay taxes when you spend it also. Of course there may be a few other taxes along the way also.

[Lobowolf]

Well, it's December 31, 2009, so you all know what that means.

 

Yes, it's the day before uber rich people (well, Americans) can die and leave their vast wealth to their spawn tax free.  (If massive inherited wealth doesn't make you all warm and tingly, well you're just not patriotic enough.)

 

Bet those life support machines are in short supply.  I wonder if there will be a rash of murders/suicides (murders early in 2010 and suicides in December, presumably.)

You can do what you want with your money while you're alive, including giving to people whom you care about. Why on earth should the government be entitled to it, or a huge chunk of it, just because you died?

Keep in mind if you gift money, a gift tax must be paid. So the govt is entitled to its cut even if you are alive. :P

 

Estate taxes are just a form of the gift tax.

 

 

Of course you paid taxes if earned income and you pay taxes when you spend it also. Of course there may be a few other taxes along the way also.

True enough, but (as far as I remember from my Tax Law class), the gift tax is at a smaller rate, and comes with exemptions (amount, and form of gift, e.g. college tuition) that the estate tax doesn't have. So they're a nasty form of the gift tax.

[mike777]

These tax rates change all the time and can be very complicated.

 

 

I always thought one good way to raise alot of revenue for all kinds of stuff is to get rid of all of the exemptions and raise the rate to 60-80%.

 

 

That means give all you want to your wife, kids, charity , church, temple, red cross etc but tax it and tax it.

[blackshoe]

So the govt is entitled to its cut even if you are alive. :P

I suppose it depends on the meaning of "entitled". As I understand the word, the government isn't "entitled" to squat — they just permit themselves to take whatever they like. :P

[nigel_k]

Keep in mind if you gift money, a gift tax must be paid. So the govt is entitled to its cut even if you are alive. :)

 

Estate taxes are just a form of the gift tax.

 

Of course you paid taxes if earned income and you pay taxes when you spend it also. Of course there may be a few other taxes along the way also.

It's much easier to avoid the gift tax than the estate tax because you can give things other than cash or and it's very hard to detect.

 

Let's say A and B earn the same income all their lives and pay the same income taxes. A lives frugally and saves and invests so he can leave money to benefit his descendants when he's gone. B squanders all his money on booze or gambles it away. You should agree with the estate tax only if you're fine with the government imposing a much higher effective rate of tax on A compared to B.

[hotShot]

Let's say A and B earn the same income all their lives and pay the same income taxes. A lives frugally and saves and invests so he can leave money to benefit his descendants when he's gone. B squanders all his money on booze or gambles it away. You should agree with the estate tax only if you're fine with the government imposing a much higher effective rate of tax on A compared to B.

Did you take into account that B paid a lot of VAT when he spend the money?

[nigel_k]

Maybe he spent it overseas or on things with no VAT? And if his descendants get the money and spend it they'll pay VAT anyway so it is a wash in that case.

 

Lest I be accused of ideological opposition to taxes (which would possibly be a true accusation), my main point is that a tax on income or consumption is much preferable to a tax on savings. There are economists all across the political spectrum who will agree with that.

[jdonn]

Lest I be accused of ideological opposition to taxes (which would possibly be a true accusation), my main point is that a tax on income or consumption is much preferable to a tax on savings. There are economists all across the political spectrum who will agree with that.

Is inheritance not income for the person who receives it?

[Phil]

Lest I be accused of ideological opposition to taxes (which would possibly be a true accusation), my main point is that a tax on income or consumption is much preferable to a tax on savings. There are economists all across the political spectrum who will agree with that.

Is inheritance not income for the person who receives it?

No.

[jdonn]

Lest I be accused of ideological opposition to taxes (which would possibly be a true accusation), my main point is that a tax on income or consumption is much preferable to a tax on savings. There are economists all across the political spectrum who will agree with that.

Is inheritance not income for the person who receives it?

No.

Well they didn't save it either...

[luke warm]

Lest I be accused of ideological opposition to taxes (which would possibly be a true accusation), my main point is that a tax on income or consumption is much preferable to a tax on savings. There are economists all across the political spectrum who will agree with that.

Is inheritance not income for the person who receives it?

No.

Well they didn't save it either...

but since it's not income, it shouldn't be subject to an income tax (imo)

[cherdanno]

Lest I be accused of ideological opposition to taxes (which would possibly be a true accusation), my main point is that a tax on income or consumption is much preferable to a tax on savings. There are economists all across the political spectrum who will agree with that.

Is inheritance not income for the person who receives it?

No.

How about a capital gain? (That's how it is getting taxed during the year 2010, I believe.)

[barmar]

The estate tax was originally intended to target only the very rich. So although it's a very nasty tax, few people were affected by it. The problem is that they didn't index it, and the popularity of mutual funds allowed more and more middle income people to invest well, so now many middle class taxpayers have found themselves with estates subject to the tax.

 

The other problem is that there are ways to get around the estate tax, by setting up trusts instead of just leaving the estate to your heirs. But these methods are typically only used by the very rich, so in the end it's just the moderately wealthy who end up paying most of the estate taxes.

[mikeh]

I get amused (or bemused) every time I read someone characterizing taxation as 'the government' taking money.

 

The government is 'us', folks...at least in a democracy. And 'we' have all kinds of services that we demand from ourselves.

 

We demand clean water, reasonably clean air, highways, airports, railways, electricity, hospitals, police, fire, social services, court systems, city and state maintenance workers, air traffic controllers, garbage and sewage disposal, education, parks, building codes, and on and on and on...

 

The exact mix that we demand from ourselves, in the form of government services, varies from country to country....but all societies that have governments provide some services to themselves, and these require money.

 

When we pay tax, we are contributing to the cost of our society...not paying some arms-length superimposed bogeyman.

 

If you are concerned about taxation, then get involved in the democratic process....anyone who sits on the sidelines and complains about 'them', in the form of government, without being politically active, doesn't deserve much attention, imo.

 

As for estate tax...why not? The heirs didn't earn one penny of the money being left to them....and that money was usually acquired by making use of the services provided by government...since we HAVE to have taxes....why not tax the dead? Would you rather pay more tax while alive?

[Winstonm]

why not tax the dead? Would you rather pay more tax while alive?

 

I can hear Monty Python now: "Wring out your dead."

[kenberg]

I have no quarrel with paying taxes, and I have no quarrel with the rich. It seems reasonable to me that some reasonable but not confiscatory estate tax, one that kicks in at a fairly high level (subjective terms, I know) is reasonable. I feel immensely lucky to have lived in this time and place and I think that those who have lived luxurious lives could acknowledge their good fortune by not insisting on nailing down every loose buck. They may think that their wealth is all their own doing and they owe no one anything. They need to rethink that. Even if they were not born into wealth they were born in a country that provides education and other support, and provides opportunity for them to use the talent that has made them rich. Bitching about having to fork over some taxes to help those who come after them is tacky.

[blackshoe]

Why do we have to have taxes?

[Hanoi5]

Why do we have to have taxes?

 

Some people need governments and we all have to pay for them.

[Lobowolf]

I get amused (or bemused) every time I read someone characterizing taxation as 'the government' taking money.

 

The government is 'us', folks...at least in a democracy. And 'we' have all kinds of services that we demand from ourselves.

 

We demand clean water, reasonably clean air, highways, airports, railways, electricity, hospitals, police, fire, social services, court systems, city and state maintenance workers, air traffic controllers, garbage and sewage disposal, education, parks, building codes, and on and on and on...

 

The exact mix that we demand from ourselves, in the form of government services, varies from country to country....but all societies that have governments provide some services to themselves, and these require money.

 

When we pay tax, we are contributing to the cost of our society...not paying some arms-length superimposed bogeyman.

 

If you are concerned about taxation, then get involved in the democratic process....anyone who sits on the sidelines and complains about 'them', in the form of government, without being politically active, doesn't deserve much attention, imo.

 

As for estate tax...why not? The heirs didn't earn one penny of the money being left to them....and that money was usually acquired by making use of the services provided by government...since we HAVE to have taxes....why not tax the dead? Would you rather pay more tax while alive?

I get amused (or bemused) every time I read someone characterizing taxation as 'the government' taking money.

 

I can relate to that. I get rather amused every time I hear taxation characterized as something other than "the government taking money."

 

 

The government is 'us', folks...at least in a democracy. And 'we' have all kinds of services that we demand from ourselves.

 

We demand clean water, reasonably clean air, highways, airports, railways, electricity, hospitals, police, fire, social services, court systems, city and state maintenance workers, air traffic controllers, garbage and sewage disposal, education, parks, building codes, and on and on and on...

 

And money is also spent on a host of things that many (and often most) of us don't support, let alone demand.

 

But, of course, the discussion isn't whether the government can or should tax people to provides services; it's how much money it should take, and from whom, and in what context. Surely, it would specious to reply to complaints about, say a 99% income tax by saying, "Well, gee, don't you want roads without potholes and clean water?"

 

 

If you are concerned about taxation, then get involved in the democratic process....anyone who sits on the sidelines and complains about 'them', in the form of government, without being politically active, doesn't deserve much attention, imo.

 

Whether or not to pay "attention," implies that there was something to pay attention to, e.g. an internet post in a forum read by reasonably intelligent people, or a statement made in the presence of others, i.e. participation in the ongoing political debate. I would construe such commentary as "being politically active," along with, for instance, voting.

 

 

As for estate tax...why not? The heirs didn't earn one penny of the money being left to them....and that money was usually acquired by making use of the services provided by government

It was also usually acquired by someone who's already paid income taxes on it, and if a corporation was involved, corporate taxes were paid prior to that, and depending on the corporation, sales taxes were paid along the way, too.

 

As someone else pointed out, the money could have been saved by someone who lived frugally in order to provide for his/her children. Or someone who wisely chose not to have children he/she couldn't afford. It could have been saved to pay for his/her children's college (subject to a gift tax exemption, btw). Take 2 next-door neighbors in equal financial positions. They're both permitted to pretty much pass their money along as they see fit (including to charity, btw, not just their lazy children). They have people and causes they care about, and money that they've managed not to lose, waste, or spend. Then one day, a drunk driver kills one of them. Now the government says, "Well, the other guy can choose the disposition of his money, but we'll now take half of the first guy's money." As a society, we recognize a right to disposition of assets after death, or we'd just have 100% reversion to the state, not wills and testaments; so a huge cut based on death seems random and extreme.

 

 

Would you rather pay more tax while alive?

No, I'd rather there were less government spending. In addition to clean water and fire departments (i.e. the things we pretty much all agree on), there are all sorts of other things that are the subject of rational debate, whether it's "free" health care, wars in the Middle East, studies about the mating habits of dung beetles, public tuition (and college residency discounts) to people in the country illegally, abstinence programs, and more. Regardless of the specifics (everyone has his/her own favorites and the ones that he/she finds highly objectionable), I'd take the position that if we can't pay for everything without taking half of the assets of everyone who kicks off, then the discussion should center around which of those goods and services are actually necessary.

 

Analogistically, I'd like a Ferrari. Maybe not as much as clean water, but I'd like one. A lot. I could steal from people and get a Ferrari, but I don't think that's an appropriate way to obtain money. I limit my income to what I consider appropriate means of acquisition, and as a necessary consequence (since *I* can't borrow trillions of dollars), I limit the things I spend money on, accordingly. Similarly, I think a massive estate tax is an inappropriate means of obtaining money to run "the government." And yes, I do know that "the government" is comprised of people just like you and me.

[blackshoe]

Why do we have to have taxes?

 

Some people need governments and we all have to pay for them.

Again, why?

 

"Because" is not an answer.