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.
Explain why what someone has worked for their entire life should go to the government upon their death. That wealth has already been taxed.
Because wealth perpetuates wealth. We don't need Noble families living in the US similar Europe of the 19th century (like the Kennedys or Hursts or many others) that use their money to buy influence and to pass regulations favorable to them and bad for everyone else when we are continuing to run huge deficits.
I know the focus is on the tax break - but geez - how much are they paying in taxes if $52B is a "break"?
It should never be an acceptable standard (not exceptions) that people need others help for long term sustainability.
In my area, real estate taxes combined with home owner's insurance rates are so damn high, it's very difficult for the average person here to keep up with the costs. In the rural parts of my community, people bought vacant lands back in the 70's for real cheap (like 500 bucks per acre, and about total $15000 for land clearing and putting up a simple 3 bedroom house) Now, people out there have paid off their mortgages (often remortgaged the homes a few times to pay for kids colleges or upgrades to the house) but still, had no major debt. But now, politicians eager to kick the homeowners out of their 5 acre tracks of land so they can subdivide and sell it for condos, are using sneaky tactics like allowing the homeowners insurance in the area to sky rocket, and the taxes to increase so high, that people are either selling out, or foreclosing on their homes. It's insane when this community used their own blood sweat and tears to cull the lands, build homes and raise families, then watch the government come in and tax them on average, $7000 a year and insurance rates for a typical 1500 sqft 3 bedroom at 4000 a year, and just suck whatever savings they have left just to push them out of their homes.
In fact, whatever is left by anyone when they die effectively becomes their estate, even if it isn't worth much.
This "break" is essentially a break for everyone who might have a family member die someday and leave them some property/inheritance.
To avoid the death tax, my dad sold me his house that I live in to this day. I'm not wealthy by no means, but I do have a real estate and pay a tax on it. I get tax exempt since it's my only house and I live in it. The tax isn't bad at all. Only 400 a year. I don't mind, since I "hope" it's going mostly to the local schools in the area. But, I have seen some people that are not wealthy but just lucked out in buying property and homes in an area when at the time was unincorporated or out in the boondocks, now be prime real estate, and the local commissioners are doing everything in their power to get those people to sell out. It's one of the reasons why the area voted against the high speed rail system, because they fear that will be all the ammunition the local and state governments need to use the dreaded eminent domain to push the people out of their homes once and for all.
But, what did the person inheriting it do, in your words, to earn it?
Why exactly do they deserve one dime of inheritance?
I say that a person who has worked hard and paid their taxes should be able to leave their money and property to anyone they choose without having that wealth taxed again.
You take the position that the person didn't earn it. So if they didn't earn it, why do they deserve a dime? Your "logic" doesn't seem very consistent.
It's absolutely consistent.
The question is what's being taxed... the person or the money.
Money that someone else earned may have been already taxed, but THAT PERSON paid the tax. If they give it to you, you ain't paid squat, nor did you earn it yourself.
So when it's transferred to you, Caesar gets his cut. That's how it should be. It's not being taxed again because you didn't pay any tax on it in the first place, but now you should.
Using your logic, no one would pay taxes. Hell, every dollar in circulation has had taxes paid on it at some point.
Taxes are bad in your opinion. But to me, they're the price of living in a good, solid representative democracy. I can afford them because I can't afford NOT to have them.
I do not see a roll back of the estate tax getting through, how do they sell this with other tax reform already benefitting the top brackets. Why is this unfair compared to other imposed taxes.
The question is what's being taxed... the person or the money.
Money that someone else earned may have been already taxed, but THAT PERSON paid the tax. If they give it to you, you ain't paid squat, nor did you earn it yourself.
So when it's transferred to you, Caesar gets his cut. That's how it should be. It's not being taxed again because you didn't pay any tax on it in the first place, but now you should.
Using your logic, no one would pay taxes. Hell, every dollar in circulation has had taxes paid on it at some point.
Taxes are bad in your opinion. But to me, they're the price of living in a good, solid representative democracy. I can afford them because I can't afford NOT to have them.
Are you really trying to claim that 5.49 or 11 Million is not rich? Really?
It is cash? Or is it assets in Stocks, Bonds, Real Estate etc?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220
Capitalism does not benefit everyone. There are things in capitalism that are zero sum, like housing, people's biggest expense.
People can always move to cheaper locales to rent or buy. You're not entitled to live in a specific city or State.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
So, the government should take everything once a person dies?
That smells like Shari'a Law.
Under Shari'a Law, when you die, you forfeit all of your property to the government (usually the local pasha or bey). That's why Muslims set up a waqf, which is like a perpetual charitable trust, usually for religious reasons, but also for charity. A waqf might be an hostel or hotel for people to stay at while making religious pilgrimages or a school or something like that. You could set it up so that your wife and children work there, so they have some kind of income after you die.
Because it contradicts the American Dream of Wealth Creation, not to mention it undermines job creation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
It seems to follow from this basic principle that property rights are worth more than human life. E.g., If a child is dying, you would not forcibly take anything from a rich person, even if it were absolutely the only option available to save the child because, in principle, the rich person's property rights are a higher priority than the child's life. Is that essentially correct?
No one has a concomitant duty to another, since we abolished Slavery more than 100 years ago.
A person has a duty to another if, and only if, they were the proximate cause of one's injuries.
Here's why: it's to prevent the formation of a permanent aristocracy.
I'm all for eliminating the estate tax below certain limits (no tax on say the first 100k). But we need an estate tax to prevent concentration of wealth at the top, said wealth concentration undermines democracy (as we have seen in the last 30 years).
This is true in theory however in-spite of such the 1% owns the highest percentage of Wealth in the USA.
I am resisting making a terrible joke ; as to if not for such, most homeowners would be renting from the equivalent of a Baron, Duke etc. and land acquisition would be nearly an impossibility. It is funny reading protection of assets for the 1% from those who are not 1% ers...
Yes You are right however we must remember the whys such was started in the first place. To pay for wars.
Proponents of the estate tax contend that these taxes are a necessary source of federal funding as well as a means to prevent the concentration of extreme wealth in the hands of a few powerful families.
Those against the estate tax, on the other hand, are concerned that the tax discourages business activity and capital accumulation and penalizes successful individuals. Given these conflicting views, different political and economic environments have led to numerous revisions of the law, which was originally enacted in 1797.
Such was enacted to benefit future Americans to not be beholden to the powerful families then. When citizens forget their history of national experience, they can be manipulated freely out of their freedoms. Rich kids are taught this history early in elementary school LOL.
Quote:
Historical Context – The 18th and 19th Century
The earliest estate and inheritance taxes were principally enacted to provide a source of funding to cover war-related expenses. As the timeline on Page 5 reveals, revenue generated from 18th and 19th century estate tax systems helped cover expenses related to events such as the Civil War and the Spanish-American War. Once those crises or wars were resolved and there was no longer a need for extra revenue, the estate tax would then be repealed.
ESTATE TAXES AND AN INDUSTRIALIZING AMERICA
During the latter part of the 19th century and into the 20th century, America experienced a systemic change to its economy as the country shifted from an agrarian economy to an industrialized one. During this period, the existing taxation regimes tended to disproportionately favor industrialists. This, coupled with unprecedented business development and new corporate ownership laws, resulted in the accumulation and concentration of substantial wealth in the hands of a few powerful individuals.
To combat these growing inequalities, the 16th Amendment was ratified, which enacted the federal income tax
Yes correct Freak. Maybe I will look up other posts of Yours. One is taught early the value of accumulating / dominion over concrete resources and one of them being LAND. Our President learned this lesson well. --Real Estate!
To avoid the death tax, my dad sold me his house that I live in to this day. I'm not wealthy by no means, but I do have a real estate and pay a tax on it. I get tax exempt since it's my only house and I live in it. The tax isn't bad at all. Only 400 a year. I don't mind, since I "hope" it's going mostly to the local schools in the area. But, I have seen some people that are not wealthy but just lucked out in buying property and homes in an area when at the time was unincorporated or out in the boondocks, now be prime real estate, and the local commissioners are doing everything in their power to get those people to sell out. It's one of the reasons why the area voted against the high speed rail system, because they fear that will be all the ammunition the local and state governments need to use the dreaded eminent domain to push the people out of their homes once and for all.
The discussion was the estate tax, the first 5 million are not taxed.
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.
One is taught early the value of accumulating / dominion over concrete resources and one of them being LAND. Our President learned this lesson well. --Real Estate! 
