The Top Fifth

[knapplc]

 

Also.....so why is a ranch different than another business in town that has taken a couple generations to build?

Good question. I suppose they aren't any different, and I'll go back to my original thought which was they should still pay estate taxes if they're over the limit, which I've proposed as $40 million for a family.

 

I edited my post about your ranch example above to show that using this $40 million limit and a 90% rate can be covered by selling 13.5% of the land in the example.

 

And I'd like to point out that everyone calling this idea communism is ignoring the $40 million I'm suggesting goes to the heirs tax-free.

 

You can point that out as much as you like, but you're giving the State rights to 13.5% of those assets that they absolutely do not deserve. They have already taxed the entire estate throughout the citizen's life. They do not deserve more than that, certainly not more than the citizen's heirs.

[zoogs]

If the state has zero right to your assets, they have zero right to collect any taxes. This is an extreme view of it. Not to say it's wrong.

 

If the state has the right to collect taxes, then they have the right to decide what is reasonable for people of different wealth levels to pay. Whether you want the structure to be less or more flat -- reasonable people can disagree. It's not a tipping point into communism.

 

--

I don't know why there's so much attention devoted to the estate tax, incidentally. Of all the tax issues that seems like one of the less pressing ones, for all the attention it gets. But it's provided for some interesting reading for me this morning. So, thanks for the discussion, everyone Here's what I'm going through now: http://ritholtz.com/2016/09/why-do-we-have-an-estate-tax/

 

I'm quite surprised your stance on the estate tax is so strong and in this direction, knapplc. But I think you for the interesting debate.

[RedDenver]

 

 

Also.....so why is a ranch different than another business in town that has taken a couple generations to build?

Good question. I suppose they aren't any different, and I'll go back to my original thought which was they should still pay estate taxes if they're over the limit, which I've proposed as $40 million for a family.

 

I edited my post about your ranch example above to show that using this $40 million limit and a 90% rate can be covered by selling 13.5% of the land in the example.

 

And I'd like to point out that everyone calling this idea communism is ignoring the $40 million I'm suggesting goes to the heirs tax-free.

 

You can point that out as much as you like, but you're giving the State rights to 13.5% of those assets that they absolutely do not deserve. They have already taxed the entire estate throughout the citizen's life. They do not deserve more than that, certainly not more than the citizen's heirs.

 

No, they didn't, they taxed the income. If you're proposing that we tax wealth instead of income, that's a different story.

 

And your did-nothing-to-earn-it heirs absolutely don't "deserve" it either. The person who did deserve it was you, but you've passed on and we need to determine how to divide up your wealth equitably among actors who don't deserve it. And I'm saying part of that division should go to the society that helped you accumulate that wealth.

[Nebfanatic]

 

 

 

 

Also.....so why is a ranch different than another business in town that has taken a couple generations to build?

Good question. I suppose they aren't any different, and I'll go back to my original thought which was they should still pay estate taxes if they're over the limit, which I've proposed as $40 million for a family.

 

I edited my post about your ranch example above to show that using this $40 million limit and a 90% rate can be covered by selling 13.5% of the land in the example.

 

And I'd like to point out that everyone calling this idea communism is ignoring the $40 million I'm suggesting goes to the heirs tax-free.

You can point that out as much as you like, but you're giving the State rights to 13.5% of those assets that they absolutely do not deserve. They have already taxed the entire estate throughout the citizen's life. They do not deserve more than that, certainly not more than the citizen's heirs.

No, they didn't, they taxed the income. If you're proposing that we tax wealth instead of income, that's a different story.

 

And your did-nothing-to-earn-it heirs absolutely don't "deserve" it either. The person who did deserve it was you, but you've passed on and we need to determine how to divide up your wealth equitably among actors who don't deserve it. And I'm saying part of that division should go to the society that helped you accumulate that wealth.

For this RedDenver, you win the grand prize.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

Also.....so why is a ranch different than another business in town that has taken a couple generations to build?

Good question. I suppose they aren't any different, and I'll go back to my original thought which was they should still pay estate taxes if they're over the limit, which I've proposed as $40 million for a family.

 

I edited my post about your ranch example above to show that using this $40 million limit and a 90% rate can be covered by selling 13.5% of the land in the example.

 

And I'd like to point out that everyone calling this idea communism is ignoring the $40 million I'm suggesting goes to the heirs tax-free.

You can point that out as much as you like, but you're giving the State rights to 13.5% of those assets that they absolutely do not deserve. They have already taxed the entire estate throughout the citizen's life. They do not deserve more than that, certainly not more than the citizen's heirs.

No, they didn't, they taxed the income. If you're proposing that we tax wealth instead of income, that's a different story.

 

And your did-nothing-to-earn-it heirs absolutely don't "deserve" it either. The person who did deserve it was you, but you've passed on and we need to determine how to divide up your wealth equitably among actors who don't deserve it. And I'm saying part of that division should go to the society that helped you accumulate that wealth.

For this RedDenver, you win the grand prize.

 

For doggedly replying in this thread to the detriment of my day job?

[zoogs]

I don't know. I'd say his heirs deserve it. To say they didn't is an unnecessary and aggressive posture. But it's also our right to agree upon tax levels when it comes to wealth transfer. The only laws we have kick in, at least presently, for pretty high levels of wealth only. And they're not egregious. It seems odd that this should be such a fault line. I guess that's why they call it a "political football" of a topic.

[Moiraine]

There should be no tax on wealth transfer.

There should be no tax on SS income

 

If we have to increase taxes elsewhere, so be it.

 

 

zoogs - it's an illogical tax regardless of high or low it is or how rich or poor the person is.

[BigRedBuster]

 

If this is pointed at me, I'm not saying the mere existence of estate tax is communism. But, when you get to the extremes that RedDenver is proposing.....it's getting pretty darn close.

Not at you. But if we get back to the "extremes" that RedDenver proposed, wasn't it nothing for estates below $10M? I agree for example that 90% past that is pretty darn extreme. But let's suppose for a moment that it was 90%.

 

That's close to communism? How is that not just (really, really high) progressive tax for the top brackets? For comparison, Bernie Sanders proposed an increase from 40 to 45% of the top estate tax rate.

 

What's "communism"?

 

There is not a big red line defining what is Communism and what isn't.

 

Personally, I believe if you're getting into that 40-45% range...your at best starting to sniff communism. As the tax rate increases, it becomes more and more communistic.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

Also.....so why is a ranch different than another business in town that has taken a couple generations to build?

Good question. I suppose they aren't any different, and I'll go back to my original thought which was they should still pay estate taxes if they're over the limit, which I've proposed as $40 million for a family.

 

I edited my post about your ranch example above to show that using this $40 million limit and a 90% rate can be covered by selling 13.5% of the land in the example.

 

And I'd like to point out that everyone calling this idea communism is ignoring the $40 million I'm suggesting goes to the heirs tax-free.

 

You can point that out as much as you like, but you're giving the State rights to 13.5% of those assets that they absolutely do not deserve. They have already taxed the entire estate throughout the citizen's life. They do not deserve more than that, certainly not more than the citizen's heirs.

 

No, they didn't, they taxed the income. If you're proposing that we tax wealth instead of income, that's a different story.

 

And your did-nothing-to-earn-it heirs absolutely don't "deserve" it either. The person who did deserve it was you, but you've passed on and we need to determine how to divide up your wealth equitably among actors who don't deserve it. And I'm saying part of that division should go to the society that helped you accumulate that wealth.

 

The bolded phrase along with the over sized font is the problem. There is no WE in this discussion. The assets are not owned by "WE".

[RedDenver]

There should be no tax on wealth transfer.

There should be no tax on SS income

 

If we have to increase taxes elsewhere, so be it.

 

 

zoogs - it's an illogical tax regardless of high or low it is or how rich or poor the person is.

I'm tired of typing, so here's a good take on why I support the estate tax: http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax?fa=view&id=2655

 

EDIT: and here's a related USNews article about it: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/03/27/facts-dont-back-estate-tax-repeal

 

From that article to address knapplc's concerns:

Opponents of estate taxation allege that it's a form of "double taxation." But a 2014 breakdown of large estates found that most of the wealth subject to the tax comes in the form of appreciated assets, such as stocks and real estate, that have never been subject to any tax. In other words, the estate tax closes an important loophole on wealth transfers among the ultra-wealthy.

[Moiraine]

I'm fine with that stuff being taxed. But if my granny were she alive gave me $10,000, neither of us should have to pay anything on it.

[knapplc]

 

There should be no tax on wealth transfer.

There should be no tax on SS income

 

If we have to increase taxes elsewhere, so be it.

 

 

zoogs - it's an illogical tax regardless of high or low it is or how rich or poor the person is.

I'm tired of typing, so here's a good take on why I support the estate tax: http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax?fa=view&id=2655

 

EDIT: and here's a related USNews article about it: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/03/27/facts-dont-back-estate-tax-repeal

 

From that article to address knapplc's concerns:

Opponents of estate taxation allege that it's a form of "double taxation." But a 2014 breakdown of large estates found that most of the wealth subject to the tax comes in the form of appreciated assets, such as stocks and real estate, that have never been subject to any tax. In other words, the estate tax closes an important loophole on wealth transfers among the ultra-wealthy.

 

That doesn't apply to a ranch that you'd have to sell 13.5% of to pay taxes on as the heir.

[JJ Husker]

I want to comment on this inheritance thing but I can't. There is such a ludicrous opinion on it in this thread that I can only shake my head. If you're coming for MY land, MY assets, MY life's work, to take it away from whomever I see fit to leave it to, you better be driving a tank and have some troops with you. The state has no claim whatsoever to what I have accumulated. It's already been earned and taxed, likely multiple times. The opinion that my heirs haven't done anything to deserve/earn it doesn't have one frikken thing to do with it. I'm sad, angry and distraught that there are people in this country that feel the state has any claim to it. If the belief is the state infrastructure helped me acquire it, then you better raise tax levels now to cover whatever it is you think I owe society because you're going to have the fight of your life if you try to collect it later. Lunacy.

[knapplc]

Just saying "my taxes are enough" doesn't make it true. But I absolutely agree that if we can meet our tax needs at a lower estate tax level, then I'm for all it. What I'm not in favor of is shifting the tax burden from the extremely wealthy to everyone else.

I missed this earlier. I agree with it.

 

I'm mostly for reasonable taxes. If we offset taxes here or there and pick them up elsewhere, whatever. Everyone should pay a fair share. The wealthy will pay more, but not a larger percentage.

[Walleye Hunting Husker]

 

There should be no tax on wealth transfer.

There should be no tax on SS income

 

If we have to increase taxes elsewhere, so be it.

 

 

zoogs - it's an illogical tax regardless of high or low it is or how rich or poor the person is.

I'm tired of typing, so here's a good take on why I support the estate tax: http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax?fa=view&id=2655

 

EDIT: and here's a related USNews article about it: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/03/27/facts-dont-back-estate-tax-repeal

 

From that article to address knapplc's concerns:

Opponents of estate taxation allege that it's a form of "double taxation." But a 2014 breakdown of large estates found that most of the wealth subject to the tax comes in the form of appreciated assets, such as stocks and real estate, that have never been subject to any tax. In other words, the estate tax closes an important loophole on wealth transfers among the ultra-wealthy.

 

 

I usually don't post much on the board but this portion of the article caught my eye. I don't agree that the real estate isn't taxed. Large and small farm operations, commercial real estate (I.E. rental houses, commercial building non-residential use Etc.) are all taxable on the state level in terms of the land. Maybe I misinterpreted the article but are they stating that the estate tax needs to be larger to combat this?