A new perspective on the estate tax

And need of course entitles them to it.

a former generally well liked president:

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased -- not a reduced -- flow of revenues to the federal government. ... The present tax codes ... inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions."

A lady named Laura Ingraham said her return was 140 pages long and took a full week to prepare.

I think the whole tax thing needs to be redone.

worksheets) but of course the electronic version becomes much abreviated.

"The Declaration of Independence, the words that launched our nation -- 1,300 words.

The Bible, the word of God -- 773,000 words.

The Tax Code, the words of politicians -- 7,000,000 words -- and growing!"

--Steve Forbes

Maybe Ill get lucky and have 100+ pages some day....

They're only up to 7,000,000 words? What do they do when they're not eating lunch?

keep adding to it because:

"The Tax Code, the words of politicians -- 7,000,000 words -- and growing!"

seems to indicate a rather constant counting effort with no end in sight because of the new additions.

No different than any other income, AFAICS. (Other than it's unearned.) Why should work subsidize inheritance? I mean, somebody has to pay the bills, NO?

Better yet: TAX WEALTH, NOT INCOME! Don't discourage work. The wealthy will continue to amass regardless. And with no effort.

-->

it anyway. Tell that to all the retired workers who depend on a return from their capital to sustain their lives.

A quite different matter, we're discussing:

>>>Tell that to all the retired workers who depend on a return from their capital to sustain their lives.>>>

Return from a retired workers capital is a very different matter from tax free inheritance. Don't you think?

If you insist that all taxes are seizure, then let's hear it for giving up the things purchased with taxes. Not just lowering or doing away with the taxes themselves.

could the following be talking about inheritance?

Better yet: TAX WEALTH, NOT INCOME! Don't discourage work. The wealthy will continue to amass regardless. And with no effort.

Your Marxist skirts are showing.

... the ideology is the same. Confiscate wealth and redistribute it by the force of the state. That is anathema to the principles upon which this country was founded.

Evie

You neo's have taken taxes so far over the top in favor of "encouraging investment" that discouraging labor has become a vague notion of the past. SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE BILLS! The income that wealth doesn't pay taxes on causes the income from labor to pay double in order to make up the difference. SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY!

For you to call me a commie because I believe that investment income should pay at (at least) the same rate as labor is ludicrous! It just goes to show how far the culture war hatred has split y'all from,,, I don't know. Humanity? Reality? The teachings of Christ?

Y'all harp on the point that the bottom 1/3 pay no taxes whatsoever. That's not true. We pay 12.4 Social Security and 5.9 Medicare on the very first and the very last dollar. Why oh why oh why should the easy-money income be exempt???? And the short-fall from easy-money's shirk is being partially covered by what should be our pay-in-advance Social Security trust fund money.

Compared to taxing labor, taxing inheritance makes infinite sense (in my opinion). If there were no bills, it would all be a very different story. The ideology is NOT the same.

If y'all have complaints about spending, SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOF TOPS! Be specific! Otherwise, frankly? y'all just sound friggin' ridiculous.

I am only a progressive, Evie my dear. Please don't label me other. I do not appreciate it, nor do I deserve it.

;-(

We have property rights in this country. And there are limited justifications for taxation in our Constitution. The rethink is what is needed. Every $ of taxes collected must be justified. Yeah, the heir pays the tax -- you can justify the heir paying the tax, but not the confiscation of nearly half of an individual's accrued wealth to REDISTRIBUTE to others.

Still think we need a test case with a very rich man up in MA. His son who is married (heterosexual mate) marries his Dad to get around the estate tax. Would be interesting to see the arguments against it

Taxing wealth is impossible. It's done largely anyway. You own many homes? You pay property taxes on each and every darned one whether you spend one day or the entire year in them. Own multiple vehicles, you pay registration fees and sometimes (in CT and other states) a vehicle tax on top of that. Yeah Bob, I'm going to put my money in a bank and save it for a rainy day if they are going to tax my wealth each year! Talk about encouraging irresponsible spending!

I'm still for a consumption tax, although it will never happen. So a flat tax is the next best option.

Evie

Ed, this last post of yours goes into my Clip & Save file, but alas, I fear it will end up in Friend DK?s In-One-Ear-Out-Thother file. It?s a great summary of U.S. Constitution writer material on LIMITED GOVERNMENT and gives insight into what tax thoughts they were thinking when our Grand Old Republic was cobbled together.

Recently I have been contemplating buying a get-away place in Chiang Mai. The process has caused me to research the tax structure and situation there. Imagine a place with no 1040 Forms and no income tax?well Chiang Mai is it. All the income you make?you get to keep. Some would say How un-Progressive of them?I say Back To The Future.

and fundamentalists. Advocating natural law, a creator, shootings, ambushes, artillery barrages, the works!

experienced the British colonial regime. Where previously the American colonies had experienced no taxation, the result of the competition with France over the preceding 50 years had obliged the Brits to increase taxation on their home islands, and the French and Indian Wars had decided the British Government to pass along the cost of protecting the 13 Colonies to the inhabitants there. Additionally some Americans had made a pleasant living smuggling taxable items like wines brandy and types of cloth past the Customs and Excise patrols. It was as a result of the smuggling and the searches and trials that followed that gave rise to the Bill of Rights Amendments 3, 4, 6 and 7, covering judicial process and search and seizure.

Government has grown a bit since then.

The reason we pay taxes is to gain the services the government offers, viz. protection (the Defence Budget) to support the judiciary and the Congress and to pay for programs voted on and passed by the legislature. The United States is the only country in existence where taxation is still viewed as "confiscation", a la Evie, as opposed to purchasing a thing of value, Social Security, Health care, protection from criminals and criminally run business enterprises, etc. And the United States has the lowest rate of taxation of any developed country in the world.

Rob Boyter

None of the lists of government services I have made is meant to be exhaustive or definitive.

When they take it without asking, by force of arms, it is confiscation. If other countries want to "view" it differently they are deluding only themselves. A thing should be called what it is.

Note that inheritence tax is taxation on money that has already been taxed at least once before.

dividends. Do we have a bid for 4?

to make it 4 (in many cases such as farms) and special taxes such as the "luxury tax" in the case of some jewelry or "water skiing equipment" (such as Bush's boat engine that morphed into a yacht under DaveK's rewrite)

If you're saying that inheritance money has likely been taxed before, you're for the most part wrong. Most inheritance is what would otherwise be a capital gain. Property purchased and it's value appreciated untaxed.

So a big "Get Out Of Jail" card, a slide, for the fortunate, and the gap for the working stiff.

... one still pays capital gains tax on property of this nature if/when it is sold. The problem comes if I inherited a 250K home (not primary residence, and over the limit of the amount obviously ...) I might have to sell the home to GET the money to pay the taxes.

If I sell my home I will make a tidy capital gain I never in a gazillion years could have made through investments. I get to keep ALL of it! Nah nah nah nah nah naaaaaahhhhh

Evie

Whoever you leave it to gets zapped. (thanks Uncle Sam)

or two, as I suggested (with subsequent indexing).

>> The problem comes if I inherited a 250K home (not primary residence, and over the limit of the amount obviously ...) I might have to sell the home to GET the money to pay the taxes. <<

The other point is that very often the kids who inherit that family farm or small business would take the money and run. My suggestion is that for farms and businesses there be a total lifetime exemption for the heirs as long as the business/farm isn't sold; the taxes would be moot upon the heirs' death, and the same situation apply to the next generation. If the business/farm were sold, the total bill would come due. This approach would do more to preserve family farms and businesses than merely giving the kids a windfall when they sell out to a developer or large corporation, as would often happen without an inheritance tax.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

into the family business.

I see the help if they want to farm, run a store, do contracting.

On the opposite side of the coin, is penalizing someone for not doing the same as their parents a proper role for the government?


JMO

Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY TO BEGIN WITH!!!!!!!

Evie