The Top Fifth

[RedDenver]

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.

And you don't. And I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

[RedDenver]

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.

Except that it has NOT been taxed. Only the income has been taxed.

 

And we're not talking about taking what is yours. We're talking about how your assets should be distributed when you're gone.

 

And part of what you're paying for with that estate tax is protection from people with tanks coming to take your land.

[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.

 

 

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?

 

I think they're saying that there's ways to avoid paying taxes on some gains like real estate, and the estate tax helps mitigate that loophole.

[JJ Husker]

Can somebody explain how real estate that has appreciated in value is deemed to have never been taxed?

 

When my home value increases, my real estate taxes increase accordingly. Those taxes are paid yearly. How would it be different on a business, farm or ranch? Am I missing something here?

[RedDenver]

Help me out here. I don't understand how everyone pushing back against my position doesn't seem to see that were talking about the upper tens of millions to billions of dollars and not the lower amounts. I'm quite literally saying, "Pass on that $40 million to your heirs without paying a dime in tax." It's only amounts above this that would be taxed.

 

If I made the limit $100 million before any tax is applied, does that change any minds or make any difference?

[Nebfanatic]

Help me out here. I don't understand how everyone pushing back against my position doesn't seem to see that were talking about the upper tens of millions to billions of dollars and not the lower amounts. I'm quite literally saying, "Pass on that $40 million to your heirs without paying a dime in tax." It's only amounts above this that would be taxed.

 

If I made the limit $100 million before any tax is applied, does that change any minds or make any difference?

This right here. If your estate is worth 40,000,001.00 you'd get taxed on 1 dollar.

[BigRedBuster]

Help me out here. I don't understand how everyone pushing back against my position doesn't seem to see that were talking about the upper tens of millions to billions of dollars and not the lower amounts. I'm quite literally saying, "Pass on that $40 million to your heirs without paying a dime in tax." It's only amounts above this that would be taxed.

 

If I made the limit $100 million before any tax is applied, does that change any minds or make any difference?

No....because there are some assets that can't be broken up without huge disruptions to even people outside of the heirs.

 

Let's say I live in central Nebraska and own a business that I have worked all my life to build and now, on paper, it is worth $150,000,000. I employ 200 people in a small town and it's located here simply because this is where I lived when I started it. The community benefits from my business by being one of the largest employers in the area and the taxes we pay. Now, let's say I die and you want to now tax my heirs on anything north of $40,000,000. That means I'm going to pay huge taxes on $110,000,000. There are one hell of a lot of businesses that can not afford that type of hit.

 

Look at my example of my own families business in the 70s. Ours wasn't anywhere close to the figures I'm using here. But, at that time, the estate taxes were such that it caused HUGE problems.

 

So....for my family, in my example, can't just sell off 20-30-50% of their manufacturing plant. So, chances are the entire company is going to be sold off. Now.....either it's going to be liquidated and 200 people lose their jobs or a big corporation is going to come in and buy it up and probably move the plant to somewhere else because they aren't committed to the community as we are by living here.

 

Where is the win in this?

 

These aren't made up scenarios. I know people who have gone through these exact situations.

 

And, if you increase the amount to 100,000,000...all that does is decrease the number of people who are affected by that. But....I'm sorry but the number affected doesn't seem like a logical fact to use to see if something is right to do or not.

[RedDenver]

Can somebody explain how real estate that has appreciated in value is deemed to have never been taxed?

 

When my home value increases, my real estate taxes increase accordingly. Those taxes are paid yearly. How would it be different on a business, farm or ranch? Am I missing something here?

There's a lot of variations in how assets are taxed. In Nebraska for example, agricultural land is taxed at only 75% of its value.

[JJ Husker]

Can I ask why $40M is the magic demarcation point?

[RedDenver]

 

Help me out here. I don't understand how everyone pushing back against my position doesn't seem to see that were talking about the upper tens of millions to billions of dollars and not the lower amounts. I'm quite literally saying, "Pass on that $40 million to your heirs without paying a dime in tax." It's only amounts above this that would be taxed.

 

If I made the limit $100 million before any tax is applied, does that change any minds or make any difference?

No....because there are some assets that can't be broken up without huge disruptions to even people outside of the heirs.

 

Let's say I live in central Nebraska and own a business that I have worked all my life to build and now, on paper, it is worth $150,000,000. I employ 200 people in a small town and it's located here simply because this is where I lived when I started it. The community benefits from my business by being one of the largest employers in the area and the taxes we pay. Now, let's say I die and you want to now tax my heirs on anything north of $40,000,000. That means I'm going to pay huge taxes on $110,000,000. There are one hell of a lot of businesses that can not afford that type of hit.

 

Look at my example of my own families business in the 70s. Ours wasn't anywhere close to the figures I'm using here. But, at that time, the estate taxes were such that it caused HUGE problems.

 

So....for my family, in my example, can't just sell off 20-30-50% of their manufacturing plant. So, chances are the entire company is going to be sold off. Now.....either it's going to be liquidated and 200 people lose their jobs or a big corporation is going to come in and buy it up and probably move the plant to somewhere else because they aren't committed to the community as we are by living here.

 

Where is the win in this?

 

These aren't made up scenarios. I know people who have gone through these exact situations.

 

And, if you increase the amount to 100,000,000...all that does is decrease the number of people who are affected by that. But....I'm sorry but the number affected doesn't seem like a logical fact to use to see if something is right to do or not.

 

The business/heirs could take out a loan. Or have a gradual pay out to the IRS. Or sell off parts as you mentioned. Or you could have been gradually selling the business to your heirs over time.

 

But why does the business in this case have to be inherited? That business can go public, in which case the investors own the company and the money of that sale would then be taxed before going to the heirs. Or it could be sold to a large corporation, as you said. Or it could be sold to the employees as a worker cooperative.

[knapplc]

Rich or poor, everyone should be taxed the same. Making this a tax only on people with assets in excess of X-million dollars doesn't change my opinion.

[RedDenver]

Can I ask why $40M is the magic demarcation point?

It was intended to be a starting place for discussion. It seemed high enough to not affect most family businesses but low enough to actually generate tax revenue and reduce wealth not being spent for generations. I'm not attached to the number.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Help me out here. I don't understand how everyone pushing back against my position doesn't seem to see that were talking about the upper tens of millions to billions of dollars and not the lower amounts. I'm quite literally saying, "Pass on that $40 million to your heirs without paying a dime in tax." It's only amounts above this that would be taxed.

 

If I made the limit $100 million before any tax is applied, does that change any minds or make any difference?

No....because there are some assets that can't be broken up without huge disruptions to even people outside of the heirs.

 

Let's say I live in central Nebraska and own a business that I have worked all my life to build and now, on paper, it is worth $150,000,000. I employ 200 people in a small town and it's located here simply because this is where I lived when I started it. The community benefits from my business by being one of the largest employers in the area and the taxes we pay. Now, let's say I die and you want to now tax my heirs on anything north of $40,000,000. That means I'm going to pay huge taxes on $110,000,000. There are one hell of a lot of businesses that can not afford that type of hit.

 

Look at my example of my own families business in the 70s. Ours wasn't anywhere close to the figures I'm using here. But, at that time, the estate taxes were such that it caused HUGE problems.

 

So....for my family, in my example, can't just sell off 20-30-50% of their manufacturing plant. So, chances are the entire company is going to be sold off. Now.....either it's going to be liquidated and 200 people lose their jobs or a big corporation is going to come in and buy it up and probably move the plant to somewhere else because they aren't committed to the community as we are by living here.

 

Where is the win in this?

 

These aren't made up scenarios. I know people who have gone through these exact situations.

 

And, if you increase the amount to 100,000,000...all that does is decrease the number of people who are affected by that. But....I'm sorry but the number affected doesn't seem like a logical fact to use to see if something is right to do or not.

 

The business/heirs could take out a loan. Or have a gradual pay out to the IRS. Or sell off parts as you mentioned. Or you could have been gradually selling the business to your heirs over time.

 

But why does the business in this case have to be inherited? That business can go public, in which case the investors own the company and the money of that sale would then be taxed before going to the heirs. Or it could be sold to a large corporation, as you said. Or it could be sold to the employees as a worker cooperative.

 

What in God's name gives the state the right to force these kinds of changes? And....this entire discussion started by a problem with wealth distribution. Forcing a company to go public would force the company into Wallstreet where there are stock owners that don't give a flying rip about a small town in Nebraska where it is located. Where is the logic of wealth distribution there?

[RedDenver]

Rich or poor, everyone should be taxed the same. Making this a tax only on people with assets in excess of X-million dollars doesn't change my opinion.

Then we're going to have to disagree on that point. The rich should bear far more of the tax burden because they gain the most from having the government and infrastructure and it deprives them the least.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

Help me out here. I don't understand how everyone pushing back against my position doesn't seem to see that were talking about the upper tens of millions to billions of dollars and not the lower amounts. I'm quite literally saying, "Pass on that $40 million to your heirs without paying a dime in tax." It's only amounts above this that would be taxed.

 

If I made the limit $100 million before any tax is applied, does that change any minds or make any difference?

No....because there are some assets that can't be broken up without huge disruptions to even people outside of the heirs.

 

Let's say I live in central Nebraska and own a business that I have worked all my life to build and now, on paper, it is worth $150,000,000. I employ 200 people in a small town and it's located here simply because this is where I lived when I started it. The community benefits from my business by being one of the largest employers in the area and the taxes we pay. Now, let's say I die and you want to now tax my heirs on anything north of $40,000,000. That means I'm going to pay huge taxes on $110,000,000. There are one hell of a lot of businesses that can not afford that type of hit.

 

Look at my example of my own families business in the 70s. Ours wasn't anywhere close to the figures I'm using here. But, at that time, the estate taxes were such that it caused HUGE problems.

 

So....for my family, in my example, can't just sell off 20-30-50% of their manufacturing plant. So, chances are the entire company is going to be sold off. Now.....either it's going to be liquidated and 200 people lose their jobs or a big corporation is going to come in and buy it up and probably move the plant to somewhere else because they aren't committed to the community as we are by living here.

 

Where is the win in this?

 

These aren't made up scenarios. I know people who have gone through these exact situations.

 

And, if you increase the amount to 100,000,000...all that does is decrease the number of people who are affected by that. But....I'm sorry but the number affected doesn't seem like a logical fact to use to see if something is right to do or not.

 

The business/heirs could take out a loan. Or have a gradual pay out to the IRS. Or sell off parts as you mentioned. Or you could have been gradually selling the business to your heirs over time.

 

But why does the business in this case have to be inherited? That business can go public, in which case the investors own the company and the money of that sale would then be taxed before going to the heirs. Or it could be sold to a large corporation, as you said. Or it could be sold to the employees as a worker cooperative.

 

What in God's name gives the state the right to force these kinds of changes? And....this entire discussion started by a problem with wealth distribution. Forcing a company to go public would force the company into Wallstreet where there are stock owners that don't give a flying rip about a small town in Nebraska where it is located. Where is the logic of wealth distribution there?

 

I gave you a whole bunch of options and I'm sure there are more. And becoming incorporated doesn't suddenly teleport the business to Wall Street.