The Top Fifth

[zoogs]

It sounds to me like "capital appreciation" is an "unrealized capital gain". But, whatever the terminology, I think my point here is that this appreciation is a quantity being taxed for the first time. Hence the "backstop" motivation for such laws.

[RedDenver]

 

It's not at all anti-American. If read the articles I posted above, you'd see that estate taxes were heavily favored by Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican btw). And how does this differ from paying taxes on income or sales? Are those anti-American too?

 

Again, I gave a number of options. Don't like breaking it up, use a different approach.

 

I'm all in favor of a less arbitrary figure. What do you suggestion?

I have no problem with taxes as they are necessary for our country to operate it's government. The type and level of taxes are all debatable.

 

My biggest issue with what you have said is from your first statements where your reasoning behind your estate taxes wasn't to raise money for the government to work. It was to break up wealth because you think the government has more right to their wealth than the heirs do. THAT is just patently wrong.

 

As for tax solutions? As I have said, I understand taxes are necessary and everyone should be paying their share. But, I am completely against taxes that openly and purposely force the break up of assets for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

 

As for a solution to collecting money to run the government, off the top of my head I would suggest that we tax income from the assets and capital gains if and when the assets are sold. I would need to be creative on how the capital gains is calculated. So, going back to the ranch in the Sandhills, the heirs would not be hit with a huge tax bill when the parents die just based on a paper value of the assets. They would be taxed on income from the ranch as long as they own it and they would be taxed on the proceeds if the ranch was sold. Also, if people inherit liquid assets like cash, that would be taxed the same way as income is taxed. They obviously would be responsible for all property taxes as usual.

 

First, let me say I don't think society (government) has MORE of a claim than the heirs, but society has SOME claim.

 

Your argument of an estate tax forcing illiquid assets to be broken up is the most convincing argument against the estate tax IMO. If we ignore that for a moment, do you think liquid (cash) assets are different? For example, if the estate tax only applied to liquid assets (and we ignore the other problems and loopholes arising from that), do you an issue with taxing that? Or do you still see that as part of the patently wrong part of your concern?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

My biggest issue with what you have said is from your first statements where your reasoning behind your estate taxes wasn't to raise money for the government to work. It was to break up wealth

I agree with this.

 

off the top of my head I would suggest that we tax income from the assets and capital gains if and when the assets are sold

The tip-top of estates will consist of "unrealized" capital gains. If the assets are never considered realized, then these gains will go untaxed in perpetuity.

 

If an asset is not sold, there is no capital gains realized or unrealized.

 

Let's say I inherit a section of land in the Platte Valley. Right now that is probably worth around $4,480,000. I have a choice of either selling that or maintaining it and receiving income off of it. So, If I keep ownership, I should be taxed on the income I receive off of that land. If I sell it, I should then be taxed a reasonable capital gains tax. If I then die 5 years from now and pass that on to my kids, they then have the opportunity to sell it and create the taxable event or receive income off of it which is taxable.

 

If assets are privately owned, eventually they will be sold. It may be generations down the road, but nothing lasts forever.

 

At one time (may still be the case) the two largest land owners in Nebraska was Ted Turner and the Mormon Church. Now, I have way more of a problem with the Mormon Church ownership than I do Ted Turner because at some point, he will die and his assets will probably be liquidated. If they aren't they will be eventually when his heirs start dying off. The Mormon Church is the one that will own the land into perpetuity. But, it's their right to own the land, I just hope the tax laws are such that the church (in this case) is taxed just like a normal investor instead of some type of loop hole for churches. I think that's the case but I have never been able to find out.

 

In your Ted Turner and heirs vs the Mormon Church as land owners, how are they any different if Ted' heirs never sell? Because even when Ted's heirs start dying off, they can hand over the assets to their heirs, and so on with each generations. You see that they're similar problems, right?

 

Sort of but not necessarily.

 

I'm not a big fan of Ted buying huge chunks of land in the Sandhills simply because I think that land is better served in the hands of the local ranchers who know how to take care of a delicate ecosystem such as that is. So, I'm not going to defend him or act like I like it that he owns that land. BUT, my point is, the government doesn't have the right to go in and break that up now or at his death just for the purpose of redistribution of wealth.

 

Interestingly, I firmly believe that if large ranches are forced to be broken up because the government believes those heirs don't deserve it and the state does, that land is MORE likely to be put in the hands of people like Turner and the Mormon Church than staying in local ownership.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

It's not at all anti-American. If read the articles I posted above, you'd see that estate taxes were heavily favored by Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican btw). And how does this differ from paying taxes on income or sales? Are those anti-American too?

 

Again, I gave a number of options. Don't like breaking it up, use a different approach.

 

I'm all in favor of a less arbitrary figure. What do you suggestion?

I have no problem with taxes as they are necessary for our country to operate it's government. The type and level of taxes are all debatable.

 

My biggest issue with what you have said is from your first statements where your reasoning behind your estate taxes wasn't to raise money for the government to work. It was to break up wealth because you think the government has more right to their wealth than the heirs do. THAT is just patently wrong.

 

As for tax solutions? As I have said, I understand taxes are necessary and everyone should be paying their share. But, I am completely against taxes that openly and purposely force the break up of assets for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

 

As for a solution to collecting money to run the government, off the top of my head I would suggest that we tax income from the assets and capital gains if and when the assets are sold. I would need to be creative on how the capital gains is calculated. So, going back to the ranch in the Sandhills, the heirs would not be hit with a huge tax bill when the parents die just based on a paper value of the assets. They would be taxed on income from the ranch as long as they own it and they would be taxed on the proceeds if the ranch was sold. Also, if people inherit liquid assets like cash, that would be taxed the same way as income is taxed. They obviously would be responsible for all property taxes as usual.

 

First, let me say I don't think society (government) has MORE of a claim than the heirs, but society has SOME claim.

 

Your argument of an estate tax forcing illiquid assets to be broken up is the most convincing argument against the estate tax IMO. If we ignore that for a moment, do you think liquid (cash) assets are different? For example, if the estate tax only applied to liquid assets (and we ignore the other problems and loopholes arising from that), do you an issue with taxing that? Or do you still see that as part of the patently wrong part of your concern?

 

Liquid assets like cash are clearly different that long term assets like ownership of a company. If I receive cash, that is clearly income that I can use to do with whatever I want and I can pay the tax with that cash. If I own a company, the taxable event can severely negatively affect the operation of that company to the point it gets shut down and liquidated. That affects WAY more people than just the heirs. It puts people out of work and negatively affects communities where these companies exist.

[zoogs]

I'm curious because I don't know: how do any companies continue operating through transferred ownership, if it always gets taxed?

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

My biggest issue with what you have said is from your first statements where your reasoning behind your estate taxes wasn't to raise money for the government to work. It was to break up wealth

I agree with this.

 

off the top of my head I would suggest that we tax income from the assets and capital gains if and when the assets are sold

The tip-top of estates will consist of "unrealized" capital gains. If the assets are never considered realized, then these gains will go untaxed in perpetuity.

 

If an asset is not sold, there is no capital gains realized or unrealized.

 

Let's say I inherit a section of land in the Platte Valley. Right now that is probably worth around $4,480,000. I have a choice of either selling that or maintaining it and receiving income off of it. So, If I keep ownership, I should be taxed on the income I receive off of that land. If I sell it, I should then be taxed a reasonable capital gains tax. If I then die 5 years from now and pass that on to my kids, they then have the opportunity to sell it and create the taxable event or receive income off of it which is taxable.

 

If assets are privately owned, eventually they will be sold. It may be generations down the road, but nothing lasts forever.

 

At one time (may still be the case) the two largest land owners in Nebraska was Ted Turner and the Mormon Church. Now, I have way more of a problem with the Mormon Church ownership than I do Ted Turner because at some point, he will die and his assets will probably be liquidated. If they aren't they will be eventually when his heirs start dying off. The Mormon Church is the one that will own the land into perpetuity. But, it's their right to own the land, I just hope the tax laws are such that the church (in this case) is taxed just like a normal investor instead of some type of loop hole for churches. I think that's the case but I have never been able to find out.

 

In your Ted Turner and heirs vs the Mormon Church as land owners, how are they any different if Ted' heirs never sell? Because even when Ted's heirs start dying off, they can hand over the assets to their heirs, and so on with each generations. You see that they're similar problems, right?

 

Sort of but not necessarily.

 

I'm not a big fan of Ted buying huge chunks of land in the Sandhills simply because I think that land is better served in the hands of the local ranchers who know how to take care of a delicate ecosystem such as that is. So, I'm not going to defend him or act like I like it that he owns that land. BUT, my point is, the government doesn't have the right to go in and break that up now or at his death just for the purpose of redistribution of wealth.

 

Interestingly, I firmly believe that if large ranches are forced to be broken up because the government believes those heirs don't deserve it and the state does, that land is MORE likely to be put in the hands of people like Turner and the Mormon Church than staying in local ownership.

 

Yes, I see your point here. Especially given the current $10.5 million exemption. But if the exemption was higher, how often would estate taxes actually affect these ranches? The link you gave somewhere earlier about the Sandhills ranch being sold was for about $19 million (if I remember right), so that ranch at least wouldn't be affected by what I'm proposing. It goes back to my question of, is there any exemption limit (and/or rate above the limit) for the estate tax that could keep billionaires from buying up and holding land without affecting the family ranches? If not, is there another means?

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

It's not at all anti-American. If read the articles I posted above, you'd see that estate taxes were heavily favored by Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican btw). And how does this differ from paying taxes on income or sales? Are those anti-American too?

 

Again, I gave a number of options. Don't like breaking it up, use a different approach.

 

I'm all in favor of a less arbitrary figure. What do you suggestion?

I have no problem with taxes as they are necessary for our country to operate it's government. The type and level of taxes are all debatable.

 

My biggest issue with what you have said is from your first statements where your reasoning behind your estate taxes wasn't to raise money for the government to work. It was to break up wealth because you think the government has more right to their wealth than the heirs do. THAT is just patently wrong.

 

As for tax solutions? As I have said, I understand taxes are necessary and everyone should be paying their share. But, I am completely against taxes that openly and purposely force the break up of assets for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

 

As for a solution to collecting money to run the government, off the top of my head I would suggest that we tax income from the assets and capital gains if and when the assets are sold. I would need to be creative on how the capital gains is calculated. So, going back to the ranch in the Sandhills, the heirs would not be hit with a huge tax bill when the parents die just based on a paper value of the assets. They would be taxed on income from the ranch as long as they own it and they would be taxed on the proceeds if the ranch was sold. Also, if people inherit liquid assets like cash, that would be taxed the same way as income is taxed. They obviously would be responsible for all property taxes as usual.

 

First, let me say I don't think society (government) has MORE of a claim than the heirs, but society has SOME claim.

 

Your argument of an estate tax forcing illiquid assets to be broken up is the most convincing argument against the estate tax IMO. If we ignore that for a moment, do you think liquid (cash) assets are different? For example, if the estate tax only applied to liquid assets (and we ignore the other problems and loopholes arising from that), do you an issue with taxing that? Or do you still see that as part of the patently wrong part of your concern?

 

Liquid assets like cash are clearly different that long term assets like ownership of a company. If I receive cash, that is clearly income that I can use to do with whatever I want and I can pay the tax with that cash. If I own a company, the taxable event can severely negatively affect the operation of that company to the point it gets shut down and liquidated. That affects WAY more people than just the heirs. It puts people out of work and negatively affects communities where these companies exist.

 

Which "taxable event" do you mean?

[BigRedBuster]

I'm curious because I don't know: how do any companies continue operating through transferred ownership, if it always gets taxed?

Depends on the type of transfer.

 

Like I have spelled out in an earlier post, in the 70s when our company went through this, we almost didn't survive even though we weren't that big of a company. The estate tax was such that we still had to pay a large amount during a time when our company wasn't making much money. It took us 10 years to do.

 

If a company is purchased, obviously the people who sold the company pay the applicable taxes and hopefully they know what those are going to be so they can decide if the proceeds from the sale can cover the taxes plus what they want to walk away with.

 

There is also one hell of a lot of estate planning that goes on as owners age so that it lessons the blow. For instance, owners can gift a certain amount of stock each year to anyone they want without it being taxed. Another way i to put the ownership company into a certain type of trust.

 

All of these methods of estate planning for family businesses have people who want to take them away. They are viewed as "loop holes". In reality, if they were taken away, a lot of family own businesses would cease to exist after the death of the owners.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

It's not at all anti-American. If read the articles I posted above, you'd see that estate taxes were heavily favored by Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican btw). And how does this differ from paying taxes on income or sales? Are those anti-American too?

 

Again, I gave a number of options. Don't like breaking it up, use a different approach.

 

I'm all in favor of a less arbitrary figure. What do you suggestion?

I have no problem with taxes as they are necessary for our country to operate it's government. The type and level of taxes are all debatable.

 

My biggest issue with what you have said is from your first statements where your reasoning behind your estate taxes wasn't to raise money for the government to work. It was to break up wealth because you think the government has more right to their wealth than the heirs do. THAT is just patently wrong.

 

As for tax solutions? As I have said, I understand taxes are necessary and everyone should be paying their share. But, I am completely against taxes that openly and purposely force the break up of assets for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

 

As for a solution to collecting money to run the government, off the top of my head I would suggest that we tax income from the assets and capital gains if and when the assets are sold. I would need to be creative on how the capital gains is calculated. So, going back to the ranch in the Sandhills, the heirs would not be hit with a huge tax bill when the parents die just based on a paper value of the assets. They would be taxed on income from the ranch as long as they own it and they would be taxed on the proceeds if the ranch was sold. Also, if people inherit liquid assets like cash, that would be taxed the same way as income is taxed. They obviously would be responsible for all property taxes as usual.

 

First, let me say I don't think society (government) has MORE of a claim than the heirs, but society has SOME claim.

 

Your argument of an estate tax forcing illiquid assets to be broken up is the most convincing argument against the estate tax IMO. If we ignore that for a moment, do you think liquid (cash) assets are different? For example, if the estate tax only applied to liquid assets (and we ignore the other problems and loopholes arising from that), do you an issue with taxing that? Or do you still see that as part of the patently wrong part of your concern?

 

Liquid assets like cash are clearly different that long term assets like ownership of a company. If I receive cash, that is clearly income that I can use to do with whatever I want and I can pay the tax with that cash. If I own a company, the taxable event can severely negatively affect the operation of that company to the point it gets shut down and liquidated. That affects WAY more people than just the heirs. It puts people out of work and negatively affects communities where these companies exist.

 

Which "taxable event" do you mean?

 

The death of an owner which would cause a estate taxable event.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

My biggest issue with what you have said is from your first statements where your reasoning behind your estate taxes wasn't to raise money for the government to work. It was to break up wealth

I agree with this.

 

off the top of my head I would suggest that we tax income from the assets and capital gains if and when the assets are sold

The tip-top of estates will consist of "unrealized" capital gains. If the assets are never considered realized, then these gains will go untaxed in perpetuity.

 

If an asset is not sold, there is no capital gains realized or unrealized.

 

Let's say I inherit a section of land in the Platte Valley. Right now that is probably worth around $4,480,000. I have a choice of either selling that or maintaining it and receiving income off of it. So, If I keep ownership, I should be taxed on the income I receive off of that land. If I sell it, I should then be taxed a reasonable capital gains tax. If I then die 5 years from now and pass that on to my kids, they then have the opportunity to sell it and create the taxable event or receive income off of it which is taxable.

 

If assets are privately owned, eventually they will be sold. It may be generations down the road, but nothing lasts forever.

 

At one time (may still be the case) the two largest land owners in Nebraska was Ted Turner and the Mormon Church. Now, I have way more of a problem with the Mormon Church ownership than I do Ted Turner because at some point, he will die and his assets will probably be liquidated. If they aren't they will be eventually when his heirs start dying off. The Mormon Church is the one that will own the land into perpetuity. But, it's their right to own the land, I just hope the tax laws are such that the church (in this case) is taxed just like a normal investor instead of some type of loop hole for churches. I think that's the case but I have never been able to find out.

 

In your Ted Turner and heirs vs the Mormon Church as land owners, how are they any different if Ted' heirs never sell? Because even when Ted's heirs start dying off, they can hand over the assets to their heirs, and so on with each generations. You see that they're similar problems, right?

 

Sort of but not necessarily.

 

I'm not a big fan of Ted buying huge chunks of land in the Sandhills simply because I think that land is better served in the hands of the local ranchers who know how to take care of a delicate ecosystem such as that is. So, I'm not going to defend him or act like I like it that he owns that land. BUT, my point is, the government doesn't have the right to go in and break that up now or at his death just for the purpose of redistribution of wealth.

 

Interestingly, I firmly believe that if large ranches are forced to be broken up because the government believes those heirs don't deserve it and the state does, that land is MORE likely to be put in the hands of people like Turner and the Mormon Church than staying in local ownership.

 

Yes, I see your point here. Especially given the current $10.5 million exemption. But if the exemption was higher, how often would estate taxes actually affect these ranches? The link you gave somewhere earlier about the Sandhills ranch being sold was for about $19 million (if I remember right), so that ranch at least wouldn't be affected by what I'm proposing. It goes back to my question of, is there any exemption limit (and/or rate above the limit) for the estate tax that could keep billionaires from buying up and holding land without affecting the family ranches? If not, is there another means?

 

I used a ranch in the sandhills as an example. I feel the same way about any family owned company. Sure, if you raise the limit, it affects fewer people. But, I don't see that as validation that it's the right thing to do.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

 

It's not at all anti-American. If read the articles I posted above, you'd see that estate taxes were heavily favored by Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican btw). And how does this differ from paying taxes on income or sales? Are those anti-American too?

 

Again, I gave a number of options. Don't like breaking it up, use a different approach.

 

I'm all in favor of a less arbitrary figure. What do you suggestion?

I have no problem with taxes as they are necessary for our country to operate it's government. The type and level of taxes are all debatable.

 

My biggest issue with what you have said is from your first statements where your reasoning behind your estate taxes wasn't to raise money for the government to work. It was to break up wealth because you think the government has more right to their wealth than the heirs do. THAT is just patently wrong.

 

As for tax solutions? As I have said, I understand taxes are necessary and everyone should be paying their share. But, I am completely against taxes that openly and purposely force the break up of assets for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

 

As for a solution to collecting money to run the government, off the top of my head I would suggest that we tax income from the assets and capital gains if and when the assets are sold. I would need to be creative on how the capital gains is calculated. So, going back to the ranch in the Sandhills, the heirs would not be hit with a huge tax bill when the parents die just based on a paper value of the assets. They would be taxed on income from the ranch as long as they own it and they would be taxed on the proceeds if the ranch was sold. Also, if people inherit liquid assets like cash, that would be taxed the same way as income is taxed. They obviously would be responsible for all property taxes as usual.

 

First, let me say I don't think society (government) has MORE of a claim than the heirs, but society has SOME claim.

 

Your argument of an estate tax forcing illiquid assets to be broken up is the most convincing argument against the estate tax IMO. If we ignore that for a moment, do you think liquid (cash) assets are different? For example, if the estate tax only applied to liquid assets (and we ignore the other problems and loopholes arising from that), do you an issue with taxing that? Or do you still see that as part of the patently wrong part of your concern?

 

Liquid assets like cash are clearly different that long term assets like ownership of a company. If I receive cash, that is clearly income that I can use to do with whatever I want and I can pay the tax with that cash. If I own a company, the taxable event can severely negatively affect the operation of that company to the point it gets shut down and liquidated. That affects WAY more people than just the heirs. It puts people out of work and negatively affects communities where these companies exist.

 

Which "taxable event" do you mean?

 

The death of an owner which would cause a estate taxable event.

 

So would you say it's fair to say your issue with the estate tax is liquidity?

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

 

 

My biggest issue with what you have said is from your first statements where your reasoning behind your estate taxes wasn't to raise money for the government to work. It was to break up wealth

I agree with this.

 

off the top of my head I would suggest that we tax income from the assets and capital gains if and when the assets are sold

The tip-top of estates will consist of "unrealized" capital gains. If the assets are never considered realized, then these gains will go untaxed in perpetuity.

 

If an asset is not sold, there is no capital gains realized or unrealized.

 

Let's say I inherit a section of land in the Platte Valley. Right now that is probably worth around $4,480,000. I have a choice of either selling that or maintaining it and receiving income off of it. So, If I keep ownership, I should be taxed on the income I receive off of that land. If I sell it, I should then be taxed a reasonable capital gains tax. If I then die 5 years from now and pass that on to my kids, they then have the opportunity to sell it and create the taxable event or receive income off of it which is taxable.

 

If assets are privately owned, eventually they will be sold. It may be generations down the road, but nothing lasts forever.

 

At one time (may still be the case) the two largest land owners in Nebraska was Ted Turner and the Mormon Church. Now, I have way more of a problem with the Mormon Church ownership than I do Ted Turner because at some point, he will die and his assets will probably be liquidated. If they aren't they will be eventually when his heirs start dying off. The Mormon Church is the one that will own the land into perpetuity. But, it's their right to own the land, I just hope the tax laws are such that the church (in this case) is taxed just like a normal investor instead of some type of loop hole for churches. I think that's the case but I have never been able to find out.

 

In your Ted Turner and heirs vs the Mormon Church as land owners, how are they any different if Ted' heirs never sell? Because even when Ted's heirs start dying off, they can hand over the assets to their heirs, and so on with each generations. You see that they're similar problems, right?

 

Sort of but not necessarily.

 

I'm not a big fan of Ted buying huge chunks of land in the Sandhills simply because I think that land is better served in the hands of the local ranchers who know how to take care of a delicate ecosystem such as that is. So, I'm not going to defend him or act like I like it that he owns that land. BUT, my point is, the government doesn't have the right to go in and break that up now or at his death just for the purpose of redistribution of wealth.

 

Interestingly, I firmly believe that if large ranches are forced to be broken up because the government believes those heirs don't deserve it and the state does, that land is MORE likely to be put in the hands of people like Turner and the Mormon Church than staying in local ownership.

 

Yes, I see your point here. Especially given the current $10.5 million exemption. But if the exemption was higher, how often would estate taxes actually affect these ranches? The link you gave somewhere earlier about the Sandhills ranch being sold was for about $19 million (if I remember right), so that ranch at least wouldn't be affected by what I'm proposing. It goes back to my question of, is there any exemption limit (and/or rate above the limit) for the estate tax that could keep billionaires from buying up and holding land without affecting the family ranches? If not, is there another means?

 

I used a ranch in the sandhills as an example. I feel the same way about any family owned company. Sure, if you raise the limit, it affects fewer people. But, I don't see that as validation that it's the right thing to do.

 

So whether the inheritance is $10 million, $1 billion, or $100 billion, it makes no difference?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not at all anti-American. If read the articles I posted above, you'd see that estate taxes were heavily favored by Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican btw). And how does this differ from paying taxes on income or sales? Are those anti-American too?

 

Again, I gave a number of options. Don't like breaking it up, use a different approach.

 

I'm all in favor of a less arbitrary figure. What do you suggestion?

I have no problem with taxes as they are necessary for our country to operate it's government. The type and level of taxes are all debatable.

 

My biggest issue with what you have said is from your first statements where your reasoning behind your estate taxes wasn't to raise money for the government to work. It was to break up wealth because you think the government has more right to their wealth than the heirs do. THAT is just patently wrong.

 

As for tax solutions? As I have said, I understand taxes are necessary and everyone should be paying their share. But, I am completely against taxes that openly and purposely force the break up of assets for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

 

As for a solution to collecting money to run the government, off the top of my head I would suggest that we tax income from the assets and capital gains if and when the assets are sold. I would need to be creative on how the capital gains is calculated. So, going back to the ranch in the Sandhills, the heirs would not be hit with a huge tax bill when the parents die just based on a paper value of the assets. They would be taxed on income from the ranch as long as they own it and they would be taxed on the proceeds if the ranch was sold. Also, if people inherit liquid assets like cash, that would be taxed the same way as income is taxed. They obviously would be responsible for all property taxes as usual.

 

First, let me say I don't think society (government) has MORE of a claim than the heirs, but society has SOME claim.

 

Your argument of an estate tax forcing illiquid assets to be broken up is the most convincing argument against the estate tax IMO. If we ignore that for a moment, do you think liquid (cash) assets are different? For example, if the estate tax only applied to liquid assets (and we ignore the other problems and loopholes arising from that), do you an issue with taxing that? Or do you still see that as part of the patently wrong part of your concern?

 

Liquid assets like cash are clearly different that long term assets like ownership of a company. If I receive cash, that is clearly income that I can use to do with whatever I want and I can pay the tax with that cash. If I own a company, the taxable event can severely negatively affect the operation of that company to the point it gets shut down and liquidated. That affects WAY more people than just the heirs. It puts people out of work and negatively affects communities where these companies exist.

 

Which "taxable event" do you mean?

 

The death of an owner which would cause a estate taxable event.

 

So would you say it's fair to say your issue with the estate tax is liquidity?

 

That's at least a large part of it. Another part is the amount I see thrown around that people think the state should have claim on the assets. (not necessarily on here)

 

When an event like this has the ability to negatively affect people like this can, it's just wrong.

[Nebfanatic]

RedDenver, in your 40M 90% estate tax scenario, an estate worth 100M would be taxed 54M, more than half of the estate. Is this a correct examination, and is that fair do you think?

[zoogs]

I understand the appeal to preserving drivers of economic production. Is there another side to this coin? I think so. The other side to this debate, as I understand it, is equally motivated by a desire to preserve a positive economy. They criticize this "passive...rentier" activity as economically harmful: https://qz.com/196575/to-get-rich-forget-entrepreneurship-and-marry-wealthy/

 

Piketty notes that the American tradition is one of high progressive taxation, especially on bequests, to prevent an American analog to European-style aristocracy. Even the patron saint of libertarianism, Robert Nozick, argued that an estate tax was fair, and suggested that, “taxes will subtract from the possessions people can bequeath the value of what they themselves have received through bequests.” Two generations of rentiers are rather enough.

There's a lot to digest there. Hopefully we can appreciate a commonality of intention.