Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The left wants everyone to believe that all money belongs to the government and we should just be thankful with what they allow us to keep.
The left believes no such thing and your insistence on demonizing them as the sole source of every problem is the least defensible thing an American can do.
My understanding is that the inheritance tax applies primarily to the wealthiest top 0.03% of the population. To defend its repeal would mean that we, the lowly 99.7% of the population, are patting the backs of the extremely wealthy for a job well done. Actually, it's probably a criminal job well done. Repealing the tax for these 0.03% would reduce America's tax revenue by ONE TRILLION dollars in the next ten years. That's not the wealth of the 0.03%, it's the TAX on their wealth.
While I have no problem with people keeping what they earn, we must accept the fact that the wealthy have tipped the table toward themselves and our laws greatly benefit them. We also have such a huge wealth disparity as a result of that tipped table, that something must be done to stop it. One man's or one woman's work is simply not worth 10,000,000,000 times the value of the work of another. These people can afford to pay inheritance tax and should be required to do so. Is it unfair on some level, the double taxation? Yes. But the system itself which rewards the already rewarded is also ridiculously unfair. Their double taxation is not a solution, it's just a bandaid, a correctly applied bandaid.
Oh nice one. the ol' farmer excuse. Would be more effective if farmers were truly impacted by this, but they aren't and yet they also benefit from being subsidized.
Actually farmers are impacted by this in substantial ways..
Federal Estate Taxes Affecting Fewer Farmers but the Future Is Uncertain (http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June09/Features/FederalEstateTax.htm - broken link)
While representing only about 6 percent of all farm estates, commercial farms account for about 40 percent of all Federal estate taxes paid by farm estates.
As a result, under current law, it is estimated that as many as 1 out of every 10 farm estates would owe estate tax in 2011. Total payments could increase to about $2.55 billion—nearly 300 percent more than farm estates are expected to owe in 2009.
This is why farms are often used as an example.. Do you think they just pulled farms out of thin air?
I see it as similar to a gift tax. The property changes ownership hands. If the person was still alive when the property changed hands, then it would be a sale and subject to a tax.
Again people, It's a gain to the individual(s) who receive just as they gain from other sources. Period.
And should be taxed just like receiving the items in other manners. Period.
It's pretty simple people.
Real life scenario. I know individuals who have made 99 year investments.. Yes, 99 years..
They would invest $5M in a project with a plan of getting a profit 99 years from now. Now of course no one will live 99 years so this investment gets handed to their children, and then probably their childrens children..
So that $5M investment, that NO ONE has profited from, gives 50% to the government if its passed to their children, leaving a balance of $2.5M, and then gets taxed again when left to the grand child leaving the balance at $1.25M.. You think thats fair? Again, NO ONE has profited.. There has been no gain.. A gain isnt realized until an investment is CASHED and spent.. Handing an asset to my child doesnt equate to a gain if its not generating profits.. we tax PROFITS in america, not assets...
In the same sense, I can spend $250,000 on a home for my child, (x2 children) and this "gain" isnt taxed. But somehow if I pass on my home to my child, it is taxed.. Explain the thinking on this to me...
The items left behind were already taxed. The income was taxed when it was earned, the gains were taxed when they were realized. The estate is what's left after the government already took as much as it was able. When the inheritors of the estate sell those assets, they will then be taxed on the gain. The death tax is NOT a tax on gains. It is a tax on HOLDINGS. And if you can't understand THAT, perhaps YOU'RE the one who needs to be educated.
Excellent point which apparently needs repeating since some people just cannot wrap their puny little brains around it.
IF the children or whomever uses the money to grow a business, create jobs, or do something other than sitting on their ass living on their parents laurels, then I'm all for them keeping more of that money and using it in a good way.
BUT
If they decide to do nothing with it, invest it in foreign banks, and do nothing with the money except become reality show stars, well, then they don't deserve that money.
Lets face it, the argument on taxes is "well I worked for it". I do work for my money, and my dad does to. But I didn't work for my dads money, and when he passes, he'll donate most of it to charity. He has told me this, and I have no problem with it whatsoever. But some rich kids would throw a hissy fit if their parents money was put back into the system and they had to work for a damned living.
I think any money not invested in a business or some other job creation effort over 500,000 dollars should be taxed at a rate of 90% or above.
If you can't understand that, then you need to educate yourself. The items left behind should not have an advantage over other methods of one obtaining wealth etc.
Estate Tax is a double dip, it's taxing assets that have already been taxed. There should be no taxes on assets given to your family. Get over it.
If you can't understand that, then you need to educate yourself. The items left behind for your family should not be taxed again. That is double taxation, and the people who want to impose this tax are probably greedy politicians and other people who have no assets to pass on to their children.
IF the children or whomever uses the money to grow a business, create jobs, or do something other than sitting on their ass living on their parents laurels, then I'm all for them keeping more of that money and using it in a good way.
BUT
If they decide to do nothing with it, invest it in foreign banks, and do nothing with the money except become reality show stars, well, then they don't deserve that money.
Lets face it, the argument on taxes is "well I worked for it". I do work for my money, and my dad does to. But I didn't work for my dads money, and when he passes, he'll donate most of it to charity. He has told me this, and I have no problem with it whatsoever. But some rich kids would throw a hissy fit if their parents money was put back into the system and they had to work for a damned living.
I think any money not invested in a business or some other job creation effort over 500,000 dollars should be taxed at a rate of 90% or above.
Who are you to dictate how another person spends/invests/saves his or her money?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
