The Top Fifth

[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.

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

 

Ok, except I'm talking any amount of $.

[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?

 

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.

Please explain how being Incorporated is associated with your ideas.

 

I'm not sure how it's at odds with what I've said. I'm fine with businesses being incorporated.

 

You're the one that brought up the term. I'm trying to figure out what you meant when you used it.

 

Do you think all corporations are contributing to wealth inequality? I don't. Nor do I think wealth inequality is inherently bad. It's the effects that wealth inequality is currently having on our society that I'm concerned about. And if there's a more effective tool to improve things than estate taxes, I'd be in favor of those tools instead.

 

You suggested that the company should be forced to go public. When I questioned that idea, you said..."becoming incorporated doesn't automatically teleport the business to Wall Street".

 

I'm trying to figure out how the term "incorporated" had anything to do with my post.

 

I didn't suggestion they "had" to go public. I gave a bunch of options of which that was one.

 

Yes...you suggested that that is one of the options they should be forced to consider. I questioned that idea and you came back with "becoming incorporated doesn't automatically teleport the business to Wall Street". I'm trying to figure out this statement.

[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.

Please explain how being Incorporated is associated with your ideas.

 

I'm not sure how it's at odds with what I've said. I'm fine with businesses being incorporated.

 

You're the one that brought up the term. I'm trying to figure out what you meant when you used it.

 

Do you think all corporations are contributing to wealth inequality? I don't. Nor do I think wealth inequality is inherently bad. It's the effects that wealth inequality is currently having on our society that I'm concerned about. And if there's a more effective tool to improve things than estate taxes, I'd be in favor of those tools instead.

 

You suggested that the company should be forced to go public. When I questioned that idea, you said..."becoming incorporated doesn't automatically teleport the business to Wall Street".

 

I'm trying to figure out how the term "incorporated" had anything to do with my post.

 

I didn't suggestion they "had" to go public. I gave a bunch of options of which that was one.

 

Yes...you suggested that that is one of the options they should be forced to consider. I questioned that idea and you came back with "becoming incorporated doesn't automatically teleport the business to Wall Street". I'm trying to figure out this statement.

 

Oh, I see. Sorry I meant "going public" not "becoming incorporated".

[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.

 

Ok, except I'm talking any amount of $.

 

Ok, then depending on the amount, I think that inheritance should be taxed.

[Landlord]

Taxes are not what I'm talking about.

 

I'm specifically talking about you believing the state should have the right and the responsibility to make sure wealth over a certain amount isn't passed on to heirs. You're not just talking about taxing at a reasonable rate. You are talking about setting a maximum amount that can be passed on and then the rest is taxed at 90% or more. Meaning.....it doesn't matter if I'm worth 40,000,001 or 40,000,000,000. If the figure is at 40,000,000....then, the state basically takes everything else.

 

THAT is un-American.

 

 

 

Was it un-American for much of that inherited wealth to be accumulated by the exploitation of black slave labor, without ever having made amends to those black family lines and descendants?

 

Was it un-American for the first several years of the Homestead Act to give away millions of acres of land to only white people (assets that have been inherited) by first forcibly removing the Native Americans living there, and then denying African-Americans the ability to take part due to their lack of citizenship?

 

Was it un-American for the government to never pay reparations to slaves, who had no wealth, no land or property, no education, and no social standing, but to pay slave-owners for their loss of property after the abolishment of slavery?

 

Was it un-American for Jim Crow laws to reserve the best jobs, neighborhoods, schools, hospitals and with them the best chances at good health, at building up savings and wealth, for white people?

 

Was it un-American for the Social Security Act to conveniently exclude the most low-income and the most minority-populated jobs, agriculture work and domestic servitude, from it's income safety net?

 

Was it un-American for the G.I. Bill, on paper said to have the goal of helping WWII soldiers adjust to civilian life with things like low-interest loans, low-cost mortgages, etc., to be specifically designed to accomodate Jim Crow laws, and to be controlled by banks who could legally refuse to loan to blacks? Of the first 67,000 mortgages insured by the G.I. Bill less than 100 of them were granted to non-whites.

 

 

 

 

Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion. That is JUST from slave labor. That doesn't include the decades of social programs that might have been argued as being technically fair but had grossly disproportionate preference to favor whites.

 

But my grandpa's inheritance to me shouldn't be taxed or capped, because he earned it all by his own bootstraps, and the kids that I help mentor on the south side of Chicago just need to break their own cycle of poverty and hopelessness and be self-made men?

[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?

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.

 

 

Yeah, I understand land and real estate is often taxed based on assessed values, adjusted in various ways, maybe capped at a percent of value, and then often times their will be many mill levies involved for various taxing entities....but it is a yearly tax.

 

That brings up the question, why at only 75% of value?

I'm not proposing it go to 100% of value but it seems that 75% of value cap was arrived at for some reason. That you mentioned it, makes me think you want to override that limit.

 

I guess I'm not seeing why an inheritance situation should override the taxing mechanisms already in place. Seems like at that point in time you want to somehow make the state "whole" and get every dime you can out of the deal even though apparently the limits etc. are fine before it is left to heirs. I'm trying to understand why. Is it just an opportune time to grab more tax $$'s?

 

I was pointing out that the government isn't necessarily double or triple taxing as knapplc suggested. I don't think the number of times you get taxed is a persuasive argument, as I'd rather get taxed at 10% twice than 20% once, so I probably shouldn't have brought it up as I don't really care whether the estate tax is taxing the same assets or not.

 

Why the strawman that I want to override the 75% limit? I don't know enough about the Nebraska agricultural land tax situation to have an opinion either way.

 

I'm not attempting to override or "make whole" any other tax.

 

I wasn't trying to introduce a strawman. I figured you mentioned that it was taxed at only 75% of value for some reason. As in there is another 25% of value to be taxed. My bad if that is not what you were getting at.

 

I think you explained some of what I have trouble with. You don't care if it's already been taxed multiple times or not. You just see another opportunity to tax the rich and transfer wealth from the top to the bottom. While were at it, maybe we should impose a breathing air tax on anyone who makes over $250K (or pick any limit you like) per year. We could figure the average respiration rate of people and charge whatever is needed per breathe to achieve your sense of wealth fairness. As long as it's from few enough ultra rich people we probably could ram it through.

[JJ Husker]

 

Taxes are not what I'm talking about.

 

I'm specifically talking about you believing the state should have the right and the responsibility to make sure wealth over a certain amount isn't passed on to heirs. You're not just talking about taxing at a reasonable rate. You are talking about setting a maximum amount that can be passed on and then the rest is taxed at 90% or more. Meaning.....it doesn't matter if I'm worth 40,000,001 or 40,000,000,000. If the figure is at 40,000,000....then, the state basically takes everything else.

 

THAT is un-American.

 

 

 

Was it un-American for much of that inherited wealth to be accumulated by the exploitation of black slave labor, without ever having made amends to those black family lines and descendants?

 

Was it un-American for the first several years of the Homestead Act to give away millions of acres of land to only white people (assets that have been inherited) by first forcibly removing the Native Americans living there, and then denying African-Americans the ability to take part due to their lack of citizenship?

 

Was it un-American for the government to never pay reparations to slaves, who had no wealth, no land or property, no education, and no social standing, but to pay slave-owners for their loss of property after the abolishment of slavery?

 

Was it un-American for Jim Crow laws to reserve the best jobs, neighborhoods, schools, hospitals and with them the best chances at good health, at building up savings and wealth, for white people?

 

Was it un-American for the Social Security Act to conveniently exclude the most low-income and the most minority-populated jobs, agriculture work and domestic servitude, from it's income safety net?

 

Was it un-American for the G.I. Bill, on paper said to have the goal of helping WWII soldiers adjust to civilian life with things like low-interest loans, low-cost mortgages, etc., to be specifically designed to accomodate Jim Crow laws, and to be controlled by banks who could legally refuse to loan to blacks? Of the first 67,000 mortgages insured by the G.I. Bill less than 100 of them were granted to non-whites.

 

 

 

 

Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion. That is JUST from slave labor. That doesn't include the decades of social programs that might have been argued as being technically fair but had grossly disproportionate preference to favor whites.

 

But my grandpa's inheritance to me shouldn't be taxed or capped, because he earned it all by his own bootstraps, and the kids that I help mentor on the south side of Chicago just need to break their own cycle of poverty and hopelessness and be self-made men?

 

 

And here's Landlord to turn this into a race issue...

[zoogs]

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.

It seems like this is an argument for a flat tax structure.

 

I'm surprised. Paul Ryan is not this fiscally conservative.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Taxes are not what I'm talking about.

 

I'm specifically talking about you believing the state should have the right and the responsibility to make sure wealth over a certain amount isn't passed on to heirs. You're not just talking about taxing at a reasonable rate. You are talking about setting a maximum amount that can be passed on and then the rest is taxed at 90% or more. Meaning.....it doesn't matter if I'm worth 40,000,001 or 40,000,000,000. If the figure is at 40,000,000....then, the state basically takes everything else.

 

THAT is un-American.

 

 

 

Was it un-American for much of that inherited wealth to be accumulated by the exploitation of black slave labor, without ever having made amends to those black family lines and descendants?

 

Was it un-American for the first several years of the Homestead Act to give away millions of acres of land to only white people (assets that have been inherited) by first forcibly removing the Native Americans living there, and then denying African-Americans the ability to take part due to their lack of citizenship?

 

Was it un-American for the government to never pay reparations to slaves, who had no wealth, no land or property, no education, and no social standing, but to pay slave-owners for their loss of property after the abolishment of slavery?

 

Was it un-American for Jim Crow laws to reserve the best jobs, neighborhoods, schools, hospitals and with them the best chances at good health, at building up savings and wealth, for white people?

 

Was it un-American for the Social Security Act to conveniently exclude the most low-income and the most minority-populated jobs, agriculture work and domestic servitude, from it's income safety net?

 

Was it un-American for the G.I. Bill, on paper said to have the goal of helping WWII soldiers adjust to civilian life with things like low-interest loans, low-cost mortgages, etc., to be specifically designed to accomodate Jim Crow laws, and to be controlled by banks who could legally refuse to loan to blacks? Of the first 67,000 mortgages insured by the G.I. Bill less than 100 of them were granted to non-whites.

 

 

 

 

Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion. That is JUST from slave labor. That doesn't include the decades of social programs that might have been argued as being technically fair but had grossly disproportionate preference to favor whites.

 

But my grandpa's inheritance to me shouldn't be taxed or capped, because he earned it all by his own bootstraps, and the kids that I help mentor on the south side of Chicago just need to break their own cycle of poverty and hopelessness and be self-made men?

 

What in the..........

[Landlord]

And here's Landlord to turn this into a race issue...

 

 

The issue of over a trillion dollars being accrued on the backs of others. Our government has never done a single thing to try and reverse any of that - only thing I'm trying to get at is why it seems so wrong for the state to work towards equality and fairness and reparation. It's not just a black/white thing. It's an American thing.

 

 

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

So I can get rich off them, exploit their helplessness, then resist any fingers being lifted by others to help them"

[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.

 

 

Yeah, I understand land and real estate is often taxed based on assessed values, adjusted in various ways, maybe capped at a percent of value, and then often times their will be many mill levies involved for various taxing entities....but it is a yearly tax.

 

That brings up the question, why at only 75% of value?

I'm not proposing it go to 100% of value but it seems that 75% of value cap was arrived at for some reason. That you mentioned it, makes me think you want to override that limit.

 

I guess I'm not seeing why an inheritance situation should override the taxing mechanisms already in place. Seems like at that point in time you want to somehow make the state "whole" and get every dime you can out of the deal even though apparently the limits etc. are fine before it is left to heirs. I'm trying to understand why. Is it just an opportune time to grab more tax $$'s?

 

I was pointing out that the government isn't necessarily double or triple taxing as knapplc suggested. I don't think the number of times you get taxed is a persuasive argument, as I'd rather get taxed at 10% twice than 20% once, so I probably shouldn't have brought it up as I don't really care whether the estate tax is taxing the same assets or not.

 

Why the strawman that I want to override the 75% limit? I don't know enough about the Nebraska agricultural land tax situation to have an opinion either way.

 

I'm not attempting to override or "make whole" any other tax.

 

I wasn't trying to introduce a strawman. I figured you mentioned that it was taxed at only 75% of value for some reason. As in there is another 25% of value to be taxed. My bad if that is not what you were getting at.

 

I think you explained some of what I have trouble with. You don't care if it's already been taxed multiple times or not. You just see another opportunity to tax the rich and transfer wealth from the top to the bottom. While were at it, maybe we should impose a breathing air tax on anyone who makes over $250K (or pick any limit you like) per year. We could figure the average respiration rate of people and charge whatever is needed per breathe to achieve your sense of wealth fairness. As long as it's from few enough ultra rich people we probably could ram it through.

 

So we're doing melodrama now? Let me give it a try:

 

No please, don't let me have $40 million (or pick any limit you like) tax-free!! I might have to sell off an island in the Caribbean. Oh no, the humanity of it all!!

[JJ Husker]

Along with the breathing air tax on rich people maybe we should also be proposing a whites only reparation tax. If you check the whites only box on your tax return simply send in an extra $2,500 per household member yearly. Now we're making headway on two fronts and, in many cases, getting the desirable added benefit of taking it from those evil rich AND white people. Winner winner chicken dinner.

[RedDenver]

Along with the breathing air tax on rich people maybe we should also be proposing a whites only reparation tax. If you check the whites only box on your tax return simply send in an extra $2,500 per household member yearly. Now we're making headway on two fronts and, in many cases, getting the desirable added benefit of taking it from those evil rich AND white people. Winner winner chicken dinner.

Come on, ED. You're better than a "rich white men are the victims" argument.

[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.

It seems like this is an argument for a flat tax structure.

 

I'm surprised. Paul Ryan is not that fiscally conservative.

 

Hey! Comparing me to Paul Ryan should be in the Shed thread.

 

 

 

[JJ Husker]

 

And here's Landlord to turn this into a race issue...

 

 

The issue of over a trillion dollars being accrued on the backs of others. Our government has never done a single thing to try and reverse any of that - only thing I'm trying to get at is why it seems so wrong for the state to work towards equality and fairness and reparation. It's not just a black/white thing. It's an American thing.

 

 

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

So I can get rich off them, exploit their helplessness, then resist any fingers being lifted by others to help them"

 

 

The point is, it was a fairly focused discussion about inheritance taxation and you just blew the lid off of it.