Forbidden Donut

The House voted Thursday to permanently...

Bad idea. Don't care about what they are permanently doing.

"Permanent" and "Democracy" are not good friends.

/though I'm not as opposed to estate taxes as some.

In theory, why should some people get taxed twice on what they've earned?



Seriously angers me.

We already do this. All the time.

We don't tax money for existing here, we tax it for moving. Why shouldn't you be taxed on moving amounts of money that are equivalent to 0.03% of the country's GDP? And how, precisely, do heirs "earn" any of that money. It's a gift, of sorts, as far as I'm concerned. And if you gave me $5,000,000.00 I can be quite certain that I'm not actually seeing that much.

The amount of the tax seems potentially punitive. But I hate rich people and nepotism anyway, so in the interest of sticking it to them, and on the theory that I will never have to worry about it personally, I declare this a win for democracy.

Also of note:
"Since 2001, the amount of an estate’s value that is exempt from the tax has risen from $675,000 to $3.5 million."

That's kind of important to the discussion. We had these before. People were okay with it. They were effectively phased out by Bush. Now that they aren't going to be phased out permanently, and raises the exemption to a 1 million dollars from the original 675k. And it increases the burden by 10%?

If I'm given 1million+ dollars, I'm willing to consider it income and have it taxed. Maybe 50% is much, but then, so is a million bucks.

I'd be willing to bet your view on that would change substantially if you were actually in that position. Try taking 40% of your million and see how you feel about it then.

People don't normally get too uppity about the taxes they receive on their lottery winnings. Certainly not to a degree where fucking congress would work to change the policy to avoid upsetting the .3% of the population that owns 90% of ... well... everything.

It's consistent. Taxes on poor folks apparently don't exist, and taxes on rich folk are an undue burden which stifles economic growth. I know the drill.

The estate tax's purpose is to prevent an aristocracy from becoming overdeveloped in this country as that's just one step shy of the utter destruction of our democracy. An established aristocracy would be worse for this country than communism. As a stop on such a change, it likely needs to be adjusted every now and again, much like the AMT. So I'm probably willing to walk away with my 3.5 million untaxed plus whatever extra I received after taxes with a smile on my face.

Yeah.

Whoever started calling this tax "the death tax", deserves to be lit aflame.

edits:
I'm also learning a lot about tax law from reading about this.

Like: You're allotted 2 million dollars in tax free gifting over the course of your life. And another 12,000/year! And this new tax kicks in on amounts over 3.5 million dollars.

Know you're dying well enough to write a will? You likely have that 2 mil in gifts left and as many 12k gifts per year as you have years left.

So I'd get taxed 0% on a 1million dollar inheritence. It would take an inheritance of $7,722,222.22 before I'd get taxed a million bucks.

If I understand this right:
10 mil inheritance is taxed at about 2 million bucks. 20%
50 mil inheritance is taxed at about 20 million bucks. 40%
100 mil inheritance is taxed at about 42.5 million bucks. 42.5%

That's WAY lower than marginal income tax rates for the same money. And I'd call it income, but I'm kind of a dick about that sort of thing.

How does that make it right? This is most certainly punitive, and unjust in my opinion.



It's not income. That money was already taxed when earned, and you should have the right to pass along your hard-earned, heavily taxed income to your loved ones without penalty.

lulz, but I don't see in any of those instances a parent giving money to a child, or from one family member to another

That's not the argument. The crux seems to be, TAXED TWICE! To which I wonder where the hell that phrase came from and why it's suddenly so popular when discussing any tax people don't like.

But now I'm going to turn this thread into a gay thread:

Conservatives are just looking for a way to strip rights away from homosexuals. By allowing parents to give tax free gifts of unlimited amounts to their children, and by denying gays the right to adopt conservatives would marginalize the homosexuals, eliminating the capital they require to carry out their agenda.

Oh shit. He figured out our plan. Kill him.

I'm working my way up to GlennBeckian levels of conspiracy. I'm still a ways out. Haven't figured out how to work in the UN or even Israel yet!

/O-L-I-G-A-R-H-...

I'm not arguing against the comic, I'm saying its irrelevant

No less relevant than claiming that certain taxes are unfair because that money is already being taxed.

And actually, reconsidering, I'm confounded that you can't see the relevance.

Estate Taxes are taxes on the wealthy, and here we have folks making the very claim made in that comic. That for some reason when you are taxing wealthy people, that money becomes untouchable and taboo. It's "punitive". It's "unfair". It's "immoral".

THOSE arguments are irrelevant, and the relevance of the comic is to point that out.

Taxes are levied damn near 100% of the time that money is transferred from one entity to another. What makes people who have enough money left over to give their children over 3.5 million dollars so special that this particular transaction deserves to be tax free?

Why is there even an exemption? I say lower the percentage and tax all that shit. Rip 6-15% of the total amount right out of their asshole like you do with most purchases made across the country.

You just sound bitter. How would you like it if you painted a portrait for your son, then to realize it had to be appraised and taxed before being passed on to him? Something you worked long and hard for, to give your child because you felt like he deserved it, then realize he has to pay for it?

Granted, of course, these are dissimilar -- we're talking about dollars and cents. The premise behind everything you preach is 'wow I would love a million dollars' so eff to all of you who are greedy and don't deserve another penny then what you earn. My parents have worked extraordinarily hard in fields which has granted them (and by association, me) a decent lifestyle. They've already paid damn near 50% of what they've earned to taxes, when all they have ever wanted to do was offer me a better life than there parents could offer them. Why, do you think it's REASONABLE to assume that when they die I should have to pay, in all essence, ANOTHER ROUND of income tax. How is that fair? If you want to say 'tax everyone' then fine, at least that's your stance, but I most certainly hope you imply that they should be taxed at the SAME RATE.

Either way, you still haven't answered my original question:

How is this just?

Yeah I really just hate rich people for being rich. It isn't at all related to the implicit dangers of a wealth distribution in which a percentage of the GDP approaching 100 is left in the hands of under 1% of the population. It's not related to that being a very fundamental cause of most economic collapses in human history. It's about what my family has been able to do with themselves as compared to the much more wealthy and how much I wish that *I* were so lucky.

Just because something seems to be something "in all essence" to you does not make it so. Your income is not taxed because you earned it, it is taxed because it moved. And it's almost never about who is moving it, but who it is being moved to. The state isn't taxed on your lottery winnings, you are. You aren't taxed on the inheritance you leave to your children, they are.

You ask how it is just. I can easily turn that around and ask why this specific tax is any less just than another. They all effectively take your money and prevent you from doing as you please with it.

Here's one last thought before I peace for the day.

If there were a 0% estate tax, would that discriminate against the infertile?
"Sorry, non-procreational citizen. The state will now confiscate the gift tax rates from your post-humous leavings because you had no children to give it to. That would have been tax free, you know. Too bad... really."

That might be the most retarded thing I've ever seen you post.

I donno. I'm sure I've done worse.

There's at least a "point" in there. Articulated more directly, why should gifts to your children be taxed less than gifts to the homeless? Gifts to businesses? Gifts to your parents? Cousins? Uncle?

I guess there's this sort of unspoken attitude where we all dream of being able to hand the world to our children on a silver platter so they can continue our work here on earth while we rest comfortably in the afterlife watching them achieve everything we didn't have time for.

You can go ahead and do that. Up to ONE MILLION DOLLARS. Free. Completely. Gubmint won't see a single red penny. If you can give more than that to your children, you are still welcome to. It isn't even taxed as much as regular gifts at that point. If you don't believe it should be taxed at all we can have that discussion. If you believe it should be taxed at a certain rate, that is also a discussion I'd like to have. But this is not even remotely close to a constructive, pleasant, meaningful or relevant one...




First of all, all money in the united states economy has been taxed thousands of times prior to it's transition through a will. One more does not make it twice. It makes it one more.

Second of all, the second part ignores that W. lowered those taxes to historically low levels, and is a completely tangential point to the fundamental validity of the estate tax.



So in 2001, when I heard NOTHING about estate taxes, you could only give 675k tax free. That number was then raised nearly every year until this one, while the actual tax level was revised down. Repeatedly. Now, that number has been *raised from what it was not a decade ago and the people are angry.

Do you understand now why I'm treating this like a joke?

I guess I look at it as comparing taxing a service or good compared to a simple movement of money from one location to another.

Kind of like equating moving money from a savings account to a checking account, or from checking to a cash withdrawal. Money isn't really doing anything, and services aren't being rendered. It's simply being moved.

That would be a service rendered. IMO anyway. It's hard to understate the role the government plays in guaranteeing and facilitating that transaction. Particularly if it's of an amount large enough to qualify for taxation.

But the fundamental rationale for the estate tax is that it's part of the commitment we have to the system of taxation we use. Without it, progressive taxation falls apart as we can't exactly tax wealth but only income and transfers. I guess if you're interested in having royalty in this country you can go ahead and support unmitigated transfer of wealth to the wealthy. I for one don't think that's either equitable or conducive to a functional society or the economic system that keeps ours running smoothly.

It's just being moved into the possession of a second person. And again... I don't think everyone's understanding this. It's not like they're pulling %50 of $1000. It's over $1 million. I don't care how hard anyone worked for it, and whether or not they payed taxes on it. You have not, if you are receiving it in their will, the person who worked that hard for it, and you certainly didn't pay taxes on it. They earned it. Yes. They paid taxes on it... Yes. You didn't earn it, you're just lucky enough to be getting it. Be happy you're getting it, suck it up, and pay the fucking taxes.

It's getting taxed twice, but as Andrew has so handily pointed out, it's actually been taxed thousands of times. And it's not the same person getting taxed on it "twice" anyway.

Fuck.

Taxes are good, they pay for things like infrastructure, and the military. So everyone who's hawkish should be absolutely thrilled about this anyway... Also forgetting the fact that 10 years ago the threshold was less than $1 million. Which I don't think is unreasonable at all. If my self-made, rich as hell god-father kicks it (god forbid) and leaves all his shit to me (I wouldn't complain), and it's over a million, I'm just going to have to console myself with the million plus I picked up instead of crying in my beer about all that other money I didn't fucking need anyway going to do things that need to be done anyway instead of funding my 5th Porsche. I'll survive. I didn't earn the fucking money anyway, what makes me deserve it more than a fucking homeless guy?

This is like Joe the fucking plumber bitching about how businesses grossing over $250K were going to get taxed at a higher rate because he wanted to be making that much at some time in the future. Meanwhile the fucking guy wasn't even an apprentice, and certainly didn't have his license. Fucking dream on man, in the meantime enjoy the low income housing you're living in because businesses grossing over $250k are helping finance with the fucking taxes you're complaining about.

Taking away incentives to make money is never good. One person's incentive may be to make gobs of money in order to set up his kids and grandkids for life and telling him X% of that will not be able to go to his kids might make him unwilling to go the extra mile.

Sure I like spending on a strong military but I think incentivizing people to work their hardest increases the overall pot from which to take taxes out of. In general decreasing the personal tax rate increases governmental revenue because it lets more money move around freely so that more opportunities to generate wealth can be pursued.

Goddammitsomuch. Completely BS argument for the failure that is trickle down supply side voodoo economics is still completely BS. And always has been.

Taxation has never, will never, and does not ever discourage people from making more money. Because in spite of having more taken away, and this is the key part coming up right here, they are still making more money. Making more money is the incentive to make more money.

You might notice that the Laffer-Curve, which is what this argument that "too much taxes actually decreases revenues" comes from, is just a bell curve skewed about 30% to the low side. I call shenanigans on math *that* fuzzy.

I know this is going to be shot down, or someone is going to say why this won't work, but I believe in a flat tax. I have heard to versions of this that I like, one being a tax that gets paid ONLY when you buy something. That includes anything, whether it is stocks, or shoes, or anything else. If you give money for a service or product, then you pay the tax. This would, in my opinion, encourage people to save. The other idea I have heard of is be subjected to a flat tax of X%, that everyone pays on any income, dividends or what have you, that you receive. Both of these would remove the need of the need for the estate tax. I like the first one personally.

The first is a problem because you'd have to instate a federal sales tax, which would fuck with certain states' programs. Like DE, for example, where businesses flock because credit rules are lax and there's no sales tax so you do a shitload of business. But I like it better than the second idea which would likely not generate enough revenue to support the country.

It also neglects the avenues that the wealthy have to avoid paying taxes. That throws any idea of a "fair tax" right out the window unless you shore that shit up tight.

Yea, it sucks that the wealthy will never be forced to pay taxes.

Not if they get their way. Which is surprisingly one of the many uses of money. Getting your way enacted into law.

Rinse and repeat for a generation and this country falls to pieces.

Giving the wealthy what they want in hopes of one day being wealthy doesn't typically pan out in the long run.



For either party.