U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should inheritances be illegal?
Yes. Inheritances should be illegal. 11 3.61%
No. Inheritances should be legal. 291 95.41%
Not sure 3 0.98%
Voters: 305. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-21-2012, 10:27 PM
 
17,027 posts, read 9,522,940 times
Reputation: 5701

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
Inheriting money is un-American IMO. But you won't hear the rich pukes who scream about welfare and unions admit that they were given free money off someone else's work.


"Someone elses work"?

Now that person isn't exact;y a strange nor gave the inheritence because they were comppelled to under threat of force now were they?

With that kind of thinking it wouldn't be a stretch to say a family shouldn't eat off of the earnings of the head of household.

I gather you put government first above all else and must be one of the "43" previously mentioned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-21-2012, 10:30 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,828 posts, read 31,665,817 times
Reputation: 12568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
I tend to think absolutely there should be gift and estate taxes, though I most certainly don't think inheritances and gifts should be illegal.

This is because I think almost every other transaction of money results in a tax. I think it is foolish to single out gratuitous transfers and put them on a pedestal over transfers for consideration. Basically by the standard you use as "Double taxation" on gifts and estates could be applied to any other transfer of wealth. E.g. if a corporation pays taxes on income and then stockholders have to pay taxes on dividends that are their share of corporate profits that would be double taxation. I pay taxes on my income, and then pay a guy to mow my lawn and he pays taxes on the post tax earnings I paid him out of that is double taxation etc.

I just think it is silly to single out one type of wealth transfer and elevate it to special status.
Not really special status..... I have a corporation, and the dividends I pay out are deducted from the taxable income of the corporation...The only tax paid is by the recipient of said dividends....It is the same with salaries the corporation pays, also deducted from net income, and the employee pays the tax..No double taxation on either....This is the way it works in Canada, but I'm not familiar with taxation rules for corporations in the US, but they are likely very similar.

Your lawnmower man is an example of double taxation and possibly more, if he used the money you paid him to, say pay a plumber to fix his toilet, so you are correct that in many cases there is tax piled on tax piled on yet more tax every time we pay for a service.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2012, 10:37 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,996,488 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Not really special status..... I have a corporation, and the dividends I pay out are deducted from the taxable income of the corporation...The only tax paid is by the recipient of said dividends....It is the same with salaries the corporation pays, also deducted from net income, and the employee pays the tax..No double taxation on either....This is the way it works in Canada, but I'm not familiar with taxation rules for corporations in the US, but they are likely very similar.

Your lawnmower man is an example of double taxation and possibly more, if he used the money you paid him to, say pay a plumber to fix his toilet, so you are correct that in many cases there is tax piled on tax piled on yet more tax every time we pay for a service.
I don't know how it works in Canada, but in America there are S-Corps and C-Corps among other things. If you are a C-Corp your dividends are after tax. If you are an S-Corp it flows directly and is only taxed once. Once you reach a certain scale it becomes very difficult not to transition to a C-Corp thus if you have stock on a publicly traded exchange, and receive dividends from them you are likely getting that out of after tax income.

As to people you hire, I don't know how things work in Canada, but in America what you describe is only true if the employees are hired for the carrying on of a trade or business. As per my example unless you were hiring them to mow your corporate offices you generally would not be able to deduct stuff for personal benefit.

So let me clarify. When you are dealing with gratuitous transfers, that are obviously not spend in the furtherance of a trade or business, why should they be treated differently from transfers for consideration?

Last edited by Randomstudent; 08-21-2012 at 10:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2012, 10:45 PM
 
1,214 posts, read 1,694,088 times
Reputation: 885
Default Whatever, draw a definite line

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
I heard a conservative claim that most liberals believe inheritances should be illegal. I told him that I was sure he was mistaken, and that the argument is over inheritance taxes on very large estates, not simply inheritances themselves.

Who's right? And should it be illegal to inherit money?
Unless the laws have changed, I believe that right now it's what?...about $1M or so that can be passed down without taxes?

Maybe change that to $1 Million per child and spouse. But tax everything over that - Like tax it right out of their pockets...

Someone that makes $500 Million or $1 Billion - let's face it, they did not make that much through their own labor. They took something from society...They took alot from society. They, and others in their group, worked for tax breaks, benefits, favorite treatment, contracts...all by sticking money in the pockets of politicians. And political contributions do personally benefit politicians...they get pretty rich in government positions, don't they?

And it's all at the expense of the rest of us.

And yes we vote for them...Though too many people that vote are doing so for the wrong reasons (Thanks greatly to propoganda of the Super Pacs financed by the super rich, as well as the single issue special interests groups)...That's why we have government that is not working.

So, make the super rich pay it back...leaving some for their families.

But, why stop there?...Just as their children should not benefit too much from their parents work, why not make it an overall policy. There is an age when people should be standing on their own two feet - Everyone.

Why not place some tax on those people that stay home after they finish college, or simply after the age of 25. There's a point that they are also unfairly benefiting - Taking their parents resources..

Base the tax on the typical rents in their areas, plus food and other amenities. Charge them an income tax. That would make it fair for rich and poor. It will be based on the value of where they are living.

And all would benefit from the tax free inheritance taxes also based on those values - which would kind of make it all fair. The poorer would pay really nothing - income taxes or inheritance taxes.

Though, I would hate to be a parent of anyone living at home like that....I'd certainly be making my own oatmeal.

....But, talk about a quick fix for social security..."Sorry Mom and Pop!...I just gotta get a new set of wheels...I only wish I could bury you in that freaking Jeep!!!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2012, 10:49 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,828 posts, read 31,665,817 times
Reputation: 12568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
I don't know how it works in Canada, but in America there are S-Corps and C-Corps among other things. If you are a C-Corp your dividends are after tax. If you are an S-Corp it flows directly and is only taxed once. Once you reach a certain scale it becomes very difficult not to transition to a C-Corp.
I'm not familiar with US corporations, so I can't comment

Quote:
As to people you hire, I don't know how things work in Canada, but in America what you describe is only true if the employees are hired for the carrying on of a trade or business. As per my example unless you were hiring them to mow your corporate offices you generally would not be able to deduct stuff for personal benefit.
It sounds like they work the same... The employees work must benefit the company, anything else is fraud.

Quote:
So let me clarify. When you are dealing with gratuitous transfers, that are obviously not spend in the furtherance of a trade or business, why should they be treated differently from transfers for consideration?
I'm not quite following you here...are you still talking about corporations?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2012, 10:59 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,996,488 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
I'm not quite following you here...are you still talking about corporations?
Quite the opposite. I am talking specifically about transfers of wealth that are specifically not involved in the conduct of a trade or business.

Basically what I am saying is that eliminating the estate and gift tax basically creates a tax incentive for people not to spend money on goods, or services, but rather to give it away either by gift or bequest/devise. I cannot think of any good reason to single out transfers that are purely gratuitous (i.e. transfers of wealth that are not made pursuant to the promise or delivery of something of value by the transferee to the transferor) and tax them less then you would tax transfers of wealth that are made in exchange for something of value. Either way is double taxation, I don't know why you would put one type of wealth transfer on a pedestal and give it favorable treatment over the other form of wealth transfer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 12:18 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,828 posts, read 31,665,817 times
Reputation: 12568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Quite the opposite. I am talking specifically about transfers of wealth that are specifically not involved in the conduct of a trade or business.

Basically what I am saying is that eliminating the estate and gift tax basically creates a tax incentive for people not to spend money on goods, or services, but rather to give it away either by gift or bequest/devise. I cannot think of any good reason to single out transfers that are purely gratuitous (i.e. transfers of wealth that are not made pursuant to the promise or delivery of something of value by the transferee to the transferor) and tax them less then you would tax transfers of wealth that are made in exchange for something of value. Either way is double taxation, I don't know why you would put one type of wealth transfer on a pedestal and give it favorable treatment over the other form of wealth transfer.
I'm putting nothing on a pedestal, I'm just trying to explain inheritance tax laws in Canada, and the reasoning behind those laws....If they weren't as they are many small family run businesses (The majority of businesses) would have gone under when the founder died...Perhaps this is one of the differences between our two countries that has contributed in a way to your failing economy...In my opinion our gift and inheritance tax laws are correct and small business friendly, and I agree with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 02:23 AM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
29,041 posts, read 44,915,360 times
Reputation: 20406
Quote:
Originally Posted by deliz View Post
Ummmmm... Who should I leave my hard earned $$ too?? My kids got degrees - graduate degrees. They aren't collecting welfare however one as a professor does pay union dues. My parents left me $$ I'll leave my kids $$ and hopefully one day that cycle shall continue. And we've all worked very very hard


I love how some people assume if anyone stands to inherit big bucks, they must be lazy and/or already living off their family's money... which is soooo not true in most cases! Personally, I won't see that money until my father is gone, which will hopefully be a LONG time from now (he's only 64 and quite healthy). In the meantime all three of his children have graduate degrees, good jobs, and are as self-sufficient as possible. We might not have to worry about money in the future, but thankfully our parents raised us to be productive until then. As for the tax issue, I'll pay whatever is required but know my father's already planning accordingly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 02:30 AM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
29,041 posts, read 44,915,360 times
Reputation: 20406
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
What I want to know is who are these three people who voted yes!?!
Click on the number, and ye shall see...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 02:34 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,125 posts, read 21,965,509 times
Reputation: 6128
Based on the policies the liberals support - they don't seem to want to pass a better future on to our children - so it would appear that they are at the very least anti good inheritances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:00 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top