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.
So it would seem that a quick summary of the first 4 responses would be: Yes, cut the estate tax. The super-rich should keep their money no matter what impact it has on the rest of society because, as a matter of basic principle, the money is theirs, plain and simple.
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?
The "dying child vs. wealthy citizen" dog whistle is a canard, logically speaking, since we have a vast array of healthcare programs to assist the dying child, to which the wealthy citizen is already contributing, and likely has been for years.
As to the "why," I think we'll both agree that John Adams encapsulated the issue very well in 1787 in his timeless remarks on property rights that still serve to enlighten and edify us even today:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Adams
"Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shall not covet," and "Thou shall not steal," are not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."
It's as if John Adams foresaw the rise of the kleptocratic state 200 years ago, and wished to impart his warning about that future development. Truly a visionary intellect.
the tax impacts any estate over $5.49 million (or roughly $11 million per couple). Those aren't "only big estates, the rich" as was pointed out earlier in this thread.
The article also says that which state you live in could be a problem too...so Bernie should now worry about what the Big Bad Feds are doing so much and take a closer look at the states.
Are you really trying to claim that 5.49 or 11 Million is not rich? Really?
why not get rid of the income tax, the estate tax, the luxury taxes, and the corporate tax...and replace it with a consumption tax...???
liberals will say no...why, because then they lose control, they lose the boogie-man of the rich don't pay enough taxes
nearly 50% of incomes is not reported....that's nearly 9 trillion in taxable income....time to get rid of the income tax
a consumption tax like explained at www.fair-tax.org can bring in as much as 5 trillion in revenue to the federal government....and its fair, unlike the current system
Nah...
If Conservatives really believed that consumption taxes were a REALLY effective way to collect taxes, they wouldn't be proposing it.
That's more than enough reason for heavy circumspection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
If you lose a lot of money in business that is the way it works and the way it should work.
Suppose I lose a million dollars in one year and profit a million dollars the next year, if the government were to tax me at 30% on my profit in the second year I'm still $300K in the hole. If I were to profit a million dollars the next year that is where you would tax it because I have generated profit that is no longer needed to cover losses.
This is sound tax policy unless you want to bankrupt companies on shaky ground and/or kill off risky ventures in business that often produce huge tax revenues in the long run.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,623,335 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor Cal Wahine
I'd wager that between the two of them they've given more money to charity than many of us combined.
There is more to "contributing to society" than having a job. Would you denigrate poor people with zero income for not "contributing to society"?
No I don't, and I see where you are going with this. But I can turn it around on you and point out that wealth is supposed to be a reward for hard work, not just having the right parents
Are you really trying to claim that 5.49 or 11 Million is not rich? Really?
For a total estate? No, it's not. I'll refer you to post #2 to see why it isn't. Hint: include all property, houses, land, cars, furnishings, stocks, bonds, bank accounts, insurance policies, etc, etc. Anything of intrinsic value.
One last time for the slow readers here, I am against the Estate Tax. That clear enough for you, if not do not reply, I will not reply to people that simply make up crap they think I posted.
then we have no issue and we can blame my question on my inability to read correctly.
I humbly apologize. I was wrong.
Are you really trying to claim that 5.49 or 11 Million is not rich? Really?
In California, that's more like "well-to-do," but not necessarily "rich."
The Obama years depreciated the good ol' U.S. dollar substantially, to the point where a million dollars, which used to be a vast sum of money, just isn't so vast any more.
An estate of $5.49 million in some states is somewhat middling these days. It does represent a lot of money, but nobody would confuse the average decedent leaving a $5.5 million estate with Warren Buffett.
What part of this do you not understand? If I lose a million in year one and profit one million in year two at the bottom of my balance sheet for those two years it says $0. I haven't made a dime.
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.
