Let it Bleed
New member
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0612/p17s01-cogn.html
Interesting article on the "death" "inheritance" estate tax.
Interesting article on the "death" "inheritance" estate tax.
I told Edwards that this article would be seen...
- Thread starter badbob
- Start date
Scott Conklin
New member
Do what. Sec?
First, expect nothing of one's parents? The land I have came from mine(mostly). I hope to leave it to my son. My parents got it from theirs...who got it from theirs...back to the late 1800's. The value of these places far exceeds any monetary considerations. Why does the state, nothing but a nest of incompetent thugs who couldn't make it in the real world(as is almost all government through history) have some authority to throw a wrench in that? We The People certainly never ok'ed it.
Second, what does the relatively miniscule number of people fighting over wills have to do with what Accountant said regarding criminal tax rates...or the general question of why people think land or business ownership implies wealth?
Or is this all just a way to distract from the ambulance-chaser Edwards' hypocrisy?
First, expect nothing of one's parents? The land I have came from mine(mostly). I hope to leave it to my son. My parents got it from theirs...who got it from theirs...back to the late 1800's. The value of these places far exceeds any monetary considerations. Why does the state, nothing but a nest of incompetent thugs who couldn't make it in the real world(as is almost all government through history) have some authority to throw a wrench in that? We The People certainly never ok'ed it.
Second, what does the relatively miniscule number of people fighting over wills have to do with what Accountant said regarding criminal tax rates...or the general question of why people think land or business ownership implies wealth?
Or is this all just a way to distract from the ambulance-chaser Edwards' hypocrisy?
Scott Conklin
New member
Bleed, interesting article. Nicely pomotes the lefty idea that the inheritance tax only effects the very wealthy, rather than actually primarily ruining those of us with a few dozen acres, a house and little else. All while benefiting the government which gets to steal yet another big piece of cash from the private sector.
Edward429451
Moderator
Man, this thread was sounding like the movie Shane for awhile there.
BoringAccountant
New member
Let It Bleed,
Very interesting article. While I certainly do not agree with the way Sam Pizzigati compared reducing and/or eliminating the death tax to taking us back to the early 20th century social classes, I do agree that it would make the rich richer. However, they missed the other side of the coin...those of us middle class "pawns" that would defintely benefit from the elimination of it. If my maw and paw were to pass away and leave their 200 acre farm to me valued at 1.7 million (all this is hypothetical...wish we had a 200 acre farm
) then if the farm and property went into the estate...we would pay a tax equal to half of the fair market value...850,000...thats sad. If the death tax were gone...we would be able to keep the farm in the family rather then having to sell it to pay taxes.
SecDef,
Huh? Yes if you only quote that one sentence from my post then your statement makes sense...why feel sorry for someone who inherits something, but read it in context, I feel sorry for them because of the tax they have to pay because their parents left it to them. They did not ask to foot the 850,000 in taxes, they were just sent a bill.
I mean, I didn't even get into the personal greed and having siblings fight over stuff thats a different discussion and I completely agree with you that thats wrong.
Just a sidenote...for any of you who may be worried about this estate and death crap for when you kick the bucket...it can be avoided through proper tax planning
Very interesting article. While I certainly do not agree with the way Sam Pizzigati compared reducing and/or eliminating the death tax to taking us back to the early 20th century social classes, I do agree that it would make the rich richer. However, they missed the other side of the coin...those of us middle class "pawns" that would defintely benefit from the elimination of it. If my maw and paw were to pass away and leave their 200 acre farm to me valued at 1.7 million (all this is hypothetical...wish we had a 200 acre farm
) then if the farm and property went into the estate...we would pay a tax equal to half of the fair market value...850,000...thats sad. If the death tax were gone...we would be able to keep the farm in the family rather then having to sell it to pay taxes. SecDef,
Huh? Yes if you only quote that one sentence from my post then your statement makes sense...why feel sorry for someone who inherits something, but read it in context, I feel sorry for them because of the tax they have to pay because their parents left it to them. They did not ask to foot the 850,000 in taxes, they were just sent a bill.
I mean, I didn't even get into the personal greed and having siblings fight over stuff thats a different discussion and I completely agree with you that thats wrong.
Just a sidenote...for any of you who may be worried about this estate and death crap for when you kick the bucket...it can be avoided through proper tax planning
Interesting. Sucks to be a second son in your family then, huh? (Since there apparently has not been any slicing and dicing of the property) That's my particular viewpoint -- as the second son.
We The People most certainly let our representatives impose this upon us. With a republican congress and republican president for the last 6 years, who were vocal about trying, but not doing, and with dems in charge now it certainly won't be going away anytime soon.
Trusts and incorporation can do a heck of a lot to save on the taxes. Not a stretch at all for a "family" estate.
Not saying I think we should be terribly excited about estate taxes, just saying that in the end, it is still a net win for the one inheriting it. I don't feel sorry for them. However, I also don't feel sorry for john q public for not being born into the trump family. You know?
Not saying I think we should be terribly excited about estate taxes, just saying that in the end, it is still a net win for the one inheriting it. I don't feel sorry for them. However, I also don't feel sorry for john q public for not being born into the trump family. You know?
Let it Bleed
New member
I agree that there needs to be some form of exemption for family owed businesses and family farms. Often as a going concern, a family business may be worth a significant amount of money, but makes only modest profits. It is not fair that these family businesses are lost b/c of impossible tax burdens. These are legitimate concerns.
Unfortunately it is difficult to tax the very wealthy except when the assets actual pass to their heirs. There should be some way to change the estate tax without abolishing it completely. Maybe defer the estate tax on family business until the businesses is actually sold, if ever. I don't know as I have very little real knowledge of the tax code. But we need some form of taxation that actually makes the extremely wealthy pay a proportionate share.
Income tax prevents wage earners from accumulating wealth and is extremely invasive of privacy. I think most would agree that the "idle rich" and those who live off of trust funds should be the true targets of the estate tax. These children have access to the finest education, no debt, and have job opportunities available that most of us do not. Then for these same people to realize an untaxed windfall on the death of their parents is simply too much.
Unfortunately it is difficult to tax the very wealthy except when the assets actual pass to their heirs. There should be some way to change the estate tax without abolishing it completely. Maybe defer the estate tax on family business until the businesses is actually sold, if ever. I don't know as I have very little real knowledge of the tax code. But we need some form of taxation that actually makes the extremely wealthy pay a proportionate share.
Income tax prevents wage earners from accumulating wealth and is extremely invasive of privacy. I think most would agree that the "idle rich" and those who live off of trust funds should be the true targets of the estate tax. These children have access to the finest education, no debt, and have job opportunities available that most of us do not. Then for these same people to realize an untaxed windfall on the death of their parents is simply too much.
BoringAccountant
New member
well seems like you got shafted on something and that you are disgruntled about it
I am not speaking as a father, but I am sure there are plenty here to support my opinion...that if the firstborn got the house and land, the second son and daughters for that matter would be compensated equally as well in my will. I mean, I don't intend to screw my kids over because they were not born first.
AGREED, it will certainly not get done with the dems in charge.
True, but in your opinion are these trusts and corps really needed...their only purpose is to "avoid" taxes...after everything had been disbursed, the corp or trusts cease to exist anymore.
Is your argument that the death tax should not be eliminated because we can create phony shell corps to avoid taxes? It thats it...it seems a little out there for me, why impose the tax at all then if we can just avoid it?
targetshootr
New member
Something has to be done. Dunno what, but it's not good when someone like Warren Buffet says his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does.
BoringAccountant
New member
Let It Bleed,
While I will not go the route that some here may go that income tax itself is unconstitutional, I agree that some tax reform needs to be done.
Well, not exactly...I mean I can see this argument, but look at the bigger picture, the U.S. government has the right to tax what someone has "earned" something (let's not get into the discussion about whether they earned it or not) then after they are able to accumulate it and they die and leave it to their kids, grandkids, etc. the government can tax it again?!?!?
While I agree that the rich need some form of taxation too because it obviously does not hurt them too much when they are worth insane amounts of money...I do not see how taxing anyone twice on the same "earned" money is right. I think that it was initially started for the same reason as the AMT tax on individuals...to tax the rich who were able to reduce their liability to nearly zero, but it has come time to rethink the process and change it to make more logical sense.
While I will not go the route that some here may go that income tax itself is unconstitutional, I agree that some tax reform needs to be done.
Well, not exactly...I mean I can see this argument, but look at the bigger picture, the U.S. government has the right to tax what someone has "earned" something (let's not get into the discussion about whether they earned it or not) then after they are able to accumulate it and they die and leave it to their kids, grandkids, etc. the government can tax it again?!?!?
While I agree that the rich need some form of taxation too because it obviously does not hurt them too much when they are worth insane amounts of money...I do not see how taxing anyone twice on the same "earned" money is right. I think that it was initially started for the same reason as the AMT tax on individuals...to tax the rich who were able to reduce their liability to nearly zero, but it has come time to rethink the process and change it to make more logical sense.
Nope.
The tax laws are way too complicated. The simple fact is, as a small business owner, I generally pay an effective tax of 9% on my income. Legally, of course, taking advantage of good accountants and tax specialists. Technically, a family farm SHOULD be incorporated, not just to take advantage of tax laws, but because they are acting as a business and should have other protections in place.
I'm not for yet another change to the tax laws. I'm all for a complete revamping. Revisit the platform Steve Forbes ran on.
Why? Because the current tax code is expensive to run, many people aren't taking advantage of trusts and incorporation because they are intimidated and might not think they have the money to do so, and it would get rid of April 15th as a blotch on the calendar.
Wasn't that the argument when the income tax was first proposed? The wealthy still pay relatively little tax while the rest of us pay...
I agree something must be done, but the wealthy are the ones that lobby effectively for the tax laws. Money=Legislation=Power. Sort of like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
badbob
targetshootr
New member
Tax laws are complicated and expensive, like our dysfunctional health insurance system, and both will likely have to be dealt
with in the one fell swoop. The older I get the more I think there are no answers to the big problems with our system of government in it's current form. Big money talks and everything else rides the subway.
with in the one fell swoop. The older I get the more I think there are no answers to the big problems with our system of government in it's current form. Big money talks and everything else rides the subway.
BoringAccountant
New member
I agree, a complete revamping seems like the only way to do it...changing this and changing that are too complicated to do when you already have a system in place that is too complicated.
Ughhh...not that I am counting the days but only 5 days left (hate when the 15th falls on a Sunday)
Death, Inheritance and property taxes are discouraging the accumulation of wealth in this country. What is needed is either a flat-tax or national sales tax.
In the 19th century, ownership of property was a pretty good measure of 'ability to pay' since land provided a source of income from farming. Only the wealthy could afford to live in towns so they were also probably able to pay.
Today, owning a small business or farm is not correlated with ability to pay because those concerns are often making only modest profits at best. As others have stated, small businesses and farms often carry such a high tax burden that heirs must sell out to satisfy the debt.
I never expected to inherit anything from my parents but I would like to know that my son will someday be able to inherit the wealth that has been accumulated over three successive generations. It bothers me that a substantial amount of that wealth will flow to the government.
Property tax has been paid on this farm every year since 1963. The income used to buy the farm and pay the property taxes was subject to income tax. My wife and I paid inheritance tax when the farm passed to us and our son will pay inheritance tax when it passes to him. The government has collected tax at every step along the way. Enough is enough!
In the 19th century, ownership of property was a pretty good measure of 'ability to pay' since land provided a source of income from farming. Only the wealthy could afford to live in towns so they were also probably able to pay.
Today, owning a small business or farm is not correlated with ability to pay because those concerns are often making only modest profits at best. As others have stated, small businesses and farms often carry such a high tax burden that heirs must sell out to satisfy the debt.
I never expected to inherit anything from my parents but I would like to know that my son will someday be able to inherit the wealth that has been accumulated over three successive generations. It bothers me that a substantial amount of that wealth will flow to the government.
Property tax has been paid on this farm every year since 1963. The income used to buy the farm and pay the property taxes was subject to income tax. My wife and I paid inheritance tax when the farm passed to us and our son will pay inheritance tax when it passes to him. The government has collected tax at every step along the way. Enough is enough!
Let it Bleed
New member
There are many forms of double taxation. I pay tax on the dollar I earn as well as the dollar I spend. I agree that the question of the constitutionality of the income tax is a dead end. The 16th Amendment specifically sets forth the power to tax income. It has been challenged in court and found constitutional. There are some people who enjoy battling windmills.
Although the size and duties of government may be debated, government is necessary and has to be funded. I simply think that income tax is the most invasive and least cost effective method of raising tax revenue.
I don't think the U.S. Gov't will ever abolish the IRS. Even if a plan could be implemented that kept tax revenues unchanged and distributed the burden exactly as it is currently, the IRS provides too much information to be lost. This may portray me as an alarmist nut, but the IRS scares the crap out of me.
Although the size and duties of government may be debated, government is necessary and has to be funded. I simply think that income tax is the most invasive and least cost effective method of raising tax revenue.
I don't think the U.S. Gov't will ever abolish the IRS. Even if a plan could be implemented that kept tax revenues unchanged and distributed the burden exactly as it is currently, the IRS provides too much information to be lost. This may portray me as an alarmist nut, but the IRS scares the crap out of me.
BoringAccountant
New member
I'm curious...do you think a flat tax would actually work...I am not asking if it would get passed and accepted, but the idea of it...would taxing everyone the same work and/or be "fair"?
Same with the national sales tax, is it fair for someone who is able to grow and/or make their own food to not pay tax as opposed to someone who lives in a city and is unable to?
These are just questions, I honestly think the simplicity of doing these things would be great, I am curious as to your thought process.
targetshootr
New member
A flat tax is regressive which I believe means it affects lower income earners disproportionately, consumes a larger percentage of their pay. Same for sales tax. We'll always have taxes, there just needs to be some balance. We actually gave huge tax cuts to the the people who needed it least during wartime. At first we were told the economy was great so we deserved our money back, then we were told the economy was bad and needed a kick start. It was tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts. Nutso. Time for the guys with straightjackets to check those boys into a Home For The Disenchanted.