Expiring death tax should stay dead.

[tsetsefly]

Unfortunately it will not as the democrats are all to happy to bring it back to pre 2001 levels.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/us...cs/18cong.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/op...l01estate.html

I think it is one of the most unfair taxes for the following reasons.
1. It does not only tax the "rich" as that threshold has gone down considerably. Also people who inherit land and what not need to pay a tax on what they get even if they dont have the money for it, ive known cases of people who have inherited land and have had to pay a large amount of taxes on it, as if the land was already making money for them.

2. In general people work to provide their children with a better life, that some bureaucrat in Washington decides what is "enough" to leave to your kids is disgusting.

3. After taxing you all your life, that government comes after you when you die is really reprehensible to say the least.

The death tax should be abolished entirely, but it wont be and if you account for the inflation coming many middle class Americans will be considered "wealthy" by government standards.
Even some countries in Europe, like Sweden, have abolished the estate tax, while others have brought down the rate considerably.

[skidder]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

Just one more good reason to have a big stash of gold coins,imo.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

Unfortunately it will not as the democrats are all to happy to bring it back to pre 2001 levels.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/us...cs/18cong.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/op...l01estate.html

I think it is one of the most unfair taxes for the following reasons.
1. It does not only tax the "rich" as that threshold has gone down considerably. Also people who inherit land and what not need to pay a tax on what they get even if they dont have the money for it, ive known cases of people who have inherited land and have had to pay a large amount of taxes on it, as if the land was already making money for them.

2. In general people work to provide their children with a better life, that some bureaucrat in Washington decides what is "enough" to leave to your kids is disgusting.

3. After taxing you all your life, that government comes after you when you die is really reprehensible to say the least.

The death tax should be abolished entirely, but it wont be and if you account for the inflation coming many middle class Americans will be considered "wealthy" by government standards.
Even some countries in Europe, like Sweden, have abolished the estate tax, while others have brought down the rate considerably.

You're out to lunch. Or you're a billionaire's son. The rich have inherited the earth. Estate taxes don't take a bite unless you're really really really really rich. Family farms aren't lost because of the the so-called death tax. Myth and Methamphetamines. It's another example of Wall Street with congress by the balls.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

You're out to lunch. Or you're a billionaire's son. The rich have inherited the earth. Estate taxes don't take a bite unless you're really really really really rich. Family farms aren't lost because of the the so-called death tax. Myth and Methamphetamines. It's another example of Wall Street with congress by the balls.

Another effort to shift the tax burden from the filthy rich to the middle and lower income earners. Even Bill Gates Sr. wants the Estate tax strengthened.

[GRG55]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

...Even some countries in Europe, like Sweden, have abolished the estate tax, while others have brought down the rate considerably.

Comparisons like this, on a discrete tax element, are disingenuous. Look at the entire Swedish tax structure and government funded services policy framework, and compare that with the USA - that kind of analysis may lead to some useful insights. Comparing a single element of the tax system between here and there doesn't tell us much of anything.

One can always find an individual element of a tax policy somewhere in the world to support whatever argument one wants to make. But it's completely meaningless.

Fundamentally opposition to an estate tax is premised on the theory of a "perfectly meritocratic" society...that individual financial results are solely due to individual intelligence and effort, and therefore that person should have sole and final say over the disposition of the lifetime fruits of their superior intellect and hard work. And for a very long time the USA has been viewed by the world as the epitome of this type of society - everyone has an "equal chance to achieve the American Dream", and presumably enjoy the results of that success.

The opposite argument is that society confers on its citizens the opportunity to earn that lifetime surplus...everything from a publicly funded education system [which educated not only the successful entrepreneur, but also the workforce from which he/she draws to build their business] to the roads and other infrastructure, the legal system within which one can create reliable contracts [this is one of the things that seriously holds back so many third world countries, where official corruption trumps everything else], and so much more.

So here's an example...a talented professional athlete is able to earn a much higher salary than they would normally command because the taxpayers, not the owners of the business, fund the cost of all the stadiums and sports venues which the athlete needs to ply his/her trade over a career. Do said athlete's talentless adult children deserve the surplus accumulated over his/her lifetime? Or should some [or all?] of it be returned to the society that provided the opportunity for such high earning power in the first place? Not an easy question to answer, is it

If the past few years has taught us anything it's that the USA is now anything but a meritocracy...that the ability to accumulate extraordinary financial gain often has little or nothing to do with merit, talent, skill or hard work. Hell, too often it's not even related to taking any personal risk any more [Americans have become so risk adverse that the majority actually support the idea that their government can keep them safe from explosives hidden in underwear by limiting and searching hand luggage - does that make any sense?]. In a political economy funded by government, where the outcomes are so severely distorted by government policies and actions, I expect an estate tax will be difficult to argue against. That situation is only compounded by the severe fiscal circumstances of so many governments all around the world.

[chr5648]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

The opposite argument is that society confers on its citizens the opportunity to earn that lifetime surplus...everything from a publicly funded education system [which educated not only the successful entrepreneur, but also the workforce from which he/she draws to build their business] to the roads and other infrastructure, the legal system within which one can create reliable contracts [this is one of the things that seriously holds back so many third world countries, where official corruption trumps everything else], and so much more.

Can I give back my half-assed public education "brain washing"?

So here's an example...a talented professional athlete is able to earn a much higher salary than they would normally command because the taxpayers, not the owners of the business, fund the cost of all the stadiums and sports venues which the athlete needs to ply his/her trade over a career. Do said athlete's talentless adult children deserve the surplus accumulated over his/her lifetime? Or should some [or all?] of it be returned to the society that provided the opportunity for such high earning power in the first place? Not an easy question to answer, is it

That professional or any other professional (banker, doctor, lawyer, politicians) can also use all the money during his lifetime, going broke. Most rich people also shield their assets in trusts and other legal vehicles, only the dumb rich people get caught paying inheritance taxes. So that argument is irrelevant.

In fact many stadiums are built to expand economic growth by creating jobs, building a local economy and such. Maybe the benefits of the local economy outweigh the taxpayer funded stadiums? Sports and events also keep the populace occupied just like the romans with the colliseum. An "opium of the masses" just without the killing by lions.

If the past few years has taught us anything it's that the USA is now anything but a meritocracy...that the ability to accumulate extraordinary financial gain often has little or nothing to do with merit, talent, skill or hard work. Hell, too often it's not even related to taking any personal risk any more [Americans have become so risk adverse that the majority actually support the idea that their government can keep them safe from explosives hidden in underwear by limiting and searching hand luggage - does that make any sense?]. In a political economy funded by government, where the outcomes are so severely distorted by government policies and actions, I expect an estate tax will be difficult to argue against. That situation is only compounded by the severe fiscal circumstances of so many governments all around the world.

I am not arguing against an estate tax. I could not agree more with the statement above.

[skidder]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

Comparisons like this, on a discrete tax element, are disingenuous. Look at the entire Swedish tax structure and government funded services policy framework, and compare that with the USA - that kind of analysis may lead to some useful insights. Comparing a single element of the tax system between here and there doesn't tell us much of anything.

One can always find an individual element of a tax policy somewhere in the world to support whatever argument one wants to make. But it's completely meaningless.

Fundamentally opposition to an estate tax is premised on the theory of a "perfectly meritocratic" society...that individual financial results are solely due to individual intelligence and effort, and therefore that person should have sole and final say over the disposition of the lifetime fruits of their superior intellect and hard work. And for a very long time the USA has been viewed by the world as the epitome of this type of society - everyone has an "equal chance to achieve the American Dream", and presumably enjoy the results of that success.

The opposite argument is that society confers on its citizens the opportunity to earn that lifetime surplus...everything from a publicly funded education system [which educated not only the successful entrepreneur, but also the workforce from which he/she draws to build their business] to the roads and other infrastructure, the legal system within which one can create reliable contracts [this is one of the things that seriously holds back so many third world countries, where official corruption trumps everything else], and so much more.

So here's an example...a talented professional athlete is able to earn a much higher salary than they would normally command because the taxpayers, not the owners of the business, fund the cost of all the stadiums and sports venues which the athlete needs to ply his/her trade over a career. Do said athlete's talentless adult children deserve the surplus accumulated over his/her lifetime? Or should some [or all?] of it be returned to the society that provided the opportunity for such high earning power in the first place? Not an easy question to answer, is it

If the past few years has taught us anything it's that the USA is now anything but a meritocracy...that the ability to accumulate extraordinary financial gain often has little or nothing to do with merit, talent, skill or hard work. Hell, too often it's not even related to taking any personal risk any more [Americans have become so risk adverse that the majority actually support the idea that their government can keep them safe from explosives hidden in underwear by limiting and searching hand luggage - does that make any sense?]. In a political economy funded by government, where the outcomes are so severely distorted by government policies and actions, I expect an estate tax will be difficult to argue against. That situation is only compounded by the severe fiscal circumstances of so many governments all around the world.

Well, I'd just point out a couple of what I feel are a few incongruent aspects of your examples.
First, high earners are the ones paying for the so called "public education system" as wells as the "roads and other infrastructure", not "the gov't" or "the public". The bottom 2/3rds or so of the population doesn't pay any more in taxes than what they receive in services or a lot less. I think we should get past the idea that everyone is a net payer into the system (simply because the tax system is applied to the whole population) and thus everyone should be the recipient of the benefits that one reaps from this system.

My understanding of the bill of goods sold to cities to fund stadiums is that of increased taxes on the ticket holders and visitors to said city through rental cars, hotel rooms, etc. The stadiums were supposed to be self-funded (yeah, sure) and thus not taxpayer supported. To the extent they are not, I'd argue for firing city managers for malfeasance and insisting on a taxpayer ownership position in the franchise.
At a minimum and to be consistent with that line of thought, one would want to argue for higher taxes on the franchise as opposed to the individual players who are not at all involved in those negotiations. This would restrict how much money the franchise had leftover to hire the athletes and accomplish the same result.

The original premise of your argument has some merit in that it recognizes that SOME individual's and company's success is the result of gov't interference, fraud or subsidation of business. One doesn't have to go far these days for a few hundred examples of bonuses or "merit" pay that is nothing of the sort and is nothing more than a rip off of stockholders or taxpayers (dollar holders more than taxpayers since the TARP, et al did not come from taxpayers but are mainly a direct debasement of dollar purchasing power through printing).
I'd rather see individuals identified and clawbacks enacted than a blanket policy enacted that goes against the idea that one is the owner of one's labor/productivity.
If Bill Gates or any other rich guy wants the gov't to have a bigger portion of their earnings then they only have to write a check to uncle sam.
The idea that gov't or one's neighbors should decide how much money one can keep goes against the idea of private property ownership. The money I earn is either mine or it is not, especially after I've already paid taxes on it. I'm not at all surprised that the gov't is fomenting class warfare, it keeps everyone's eyes off the ball of gov't size, malfeasance and fraud.
You (assuming you are arguing for this tax, which isn't at all clear from your statement) and all the others who argue for the death tax, individually, will NEVER reap the benefits of the rich having their wealth confiscated. There aren't enough of them with enough money at risk of confiscation to be meaningful when talking about trillion dollar deficits. The U.S. gov't will NEVER live within their means and potentially lower taxes for you because they stole the wealth of a rich guy. You will only have the satisfaction of knowing that you 1). Got to stick it to someone you don't like because of their wealth.
2). Can now consider yourself at least a partial communist.
3). Can now start teaching your kids that hard work doesn't get you ahead in life and if you do get ahead it is because the gov't had a policy which selected you to be a winner instead of a much more worthy individual. If this becomes the case, you can expect to give that money back to the folks responsible for that success, "the public".

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

[grapejelly]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

the death tax is built on the assumption that the State owns you. That you rent whatever you earn, and then when you die it reverts back to the State.

It's basically a form of serfdom.

Taxes are theft. Stealing an estate is extremely grand theft. And it is counter productive because smart people figure out how to avoid the death tax anyway. The very rich avoid it, and the little-bit-rich get bitten to death by it, it seems to me.

[World Traveler]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

Good summary, GRG55. The U.S. is devolving into an oligarchy, a few (usually) well-connected insiders getting rich at others' expense.

Taxpayer bailouts for rich bankers' unethical and predatory behaviour, Private Equity asset-stripping once-proud and productive companies, income taxes for the rich have gone down significantly since 1980, but Social Security taxes, which hit the working class hardest, have only increased. And working and middle classes don't even know if they'll get all their "Social Security investment" back, since it's all been loaned to Treasury to fund government deficits caused in part by falling income tax rates on the super-rich.

It's pretty depressing. I'm very familiar with Latin America and the parallels are becoming striking. Vote for change and what do you get - more of the same. Elected officials in Washington (both Republican and Democrat) who mouth a phony populist agenda for the cameras, but then vote in legislation to benefit wealthy backers.

Maybe some day, the Latin America analogy will go one step further, when the common folk are REALLY mad and poor, they'll start a revolution.

From a socio-political-economic perspective, I honestly think that the best analogy for what's happening and will happen in U.S. in next decade or two is not the 1930's, but rather the second half of the 1800's.

In late 1800's, there were local Granger and farmers' movements, lots of people protests against the concentration of wealth. These common folk were in some cases able to take over local and state governments by organizing locally. But nothing really fundamentally changed. Special interests and Big Money continued control both Washington (in Republican and Democratic administrations) as well as majority of state governments.

In the U.S., I don't think we'll see a return to a focus on the "common good" and more equitable income/wealth distribution (a la 1930's, 1940's, 1950's), for at least a generation. Because most Americans are still not willing to make the mental jump and realize that we are not living in a true meritocracy (FRANCE and most of Europe, surveys show, have greater social/economic mobility thatn U.S.!), but rather a country run for the benefits Special Interests, espcially Big Money with deep pockets, either individual or corporate.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

Taxes are theft.

Starting with that premise doesn't allow thoughtful discussion. You must certainly gain some benefit from participating in a modern cooperative society. Don't you occasionally travel on a road, or use a water system, or prefer to live where police and fire departments operate?

[Diarmuid]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

Starting with that premise doesn't allow thoughtful discussion. You must certainly gain some benefit from participating in a modern cooperative society. Don't you occasionally travel on a road, or use a water system, or prefer to live where police and fire departments operate?

If money is created exogenously and all with an interest bearing return attached. Governments worldwide continually run operating deficits ensuring a sizeable percentage of tax income goes to pay off that interest, which is essentially unpayable and perpetual in it existence. Since there is no operational reason why a government could not issue it own money interest free or alternatively open the money market to competition and end legal tender, a sizeable part of our taxable income used to pay down that interest is certainly not representative taxation. The debate imo should be about the fraud in built in the current system and not whether there should be taxes or not - the question of services such as fire departments, policing etc.and the necessity of taxation is a diversion to the real issues and is used to just partially legitimize a system which at its core is in fact just a corrupt cartel of banking interest monopolizing a vital service absolutely necessary to the proper function of society.

So the question to mind should be about the current central bank / private bank cartel money system and not taxation per se, additional until this issue is resolved taxation has no legitimacy in my view as it is used to prop up the current bullshit. Austerity measures to the benefit of the already grossly wealthy and to detriment of the poorest and most vulnerable in my country are testament to this fact to my mind.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

You (assuming you are arguing for this tax, which isn't at all clear from your statement) and all the others who argue for the death tax, individually, will NEVER reap the benefits of the rich having their wealth confiscated. There aren't enough of them with enough money at risk of confiscation to be meaningful when talking about trillion dollar deficits. The U.S. gov't will NEVER live within their means and potentially lower taxes for you because they stole the wealth of a rich guy.

One other reason for an estate tax, which I have not seen mentioned here yet, is to prevent the proliferation of dynasties of wealth. An estate tax really isn't so much about confiscation of wealth so much as preventing a concentration of power, which unfortunately, the U.S. currently has.

The government and/or the unwashed masses will not necessarily derive a free lunch from the confiscation of wealth even if all loop holes, tax shelters, and other shelters for wealth are fully eliminated. The wealthy could simply choose to spend all of their money before dying or give the money away to charities as Andrew Carnegie did.

Just throwing this thought out there.... I'm neither for nor against an estate tax and am interested in hearing strong arguments for both sides of the issue.

[WildspitzE]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

the death tax is built on the assumption that the State owns you. That you rent whatever you earn, and then when you die it reverts back to the State.

It's basically a form of serfdom.

Taxes are theft. Stealing an estate is extremely grand theft. And it is counter productive because smart people figure out how to avoid the death tax anyway. The very rich avoid it, and the little-bit-rich get bitten to death by it, it seems to me.

Exactly...

[Slimprofits]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

I'm surprised that GrapeJelly didn't mention the history.

The National Inheritance Tax was first passed in order to pay for the Spanish-American War and it was finally repealed in 1902.

Than to pay for World War I, Congress set out to create a multitude of new taxes. The Revenue Act of 1916 was the result and it included and income and estate tax.

So folks, set aside all of your petty arguments about the rich, the poor and the middle class. Stop allowing yourselves to be divided and realize that they are mechanism for the funding the Empire in 2009.

[Chomsky]

Re: Expiring death tax should stay dead.

I'm surprised that GrapeJelly didn't mention the history.

The National Inheritance Tax was first passed in order to pay for the Spanish-American War and it was finally repealed in 1902.

Than to pay for World War I, Congress set out to create a multitude of new taxes. The Revenue Act of 1916 was the result and it included and income and estate tax.

So folks, set aside all of your petty arguments about the rich, the poor and the middle class. Stop allowing yourselves to be divided and realize that they are mechanism for the funding the Empire in 2009.

The U.S. didn't enter WWI until 1917 -- are you saying that Congress revived the estate tax in advance of the U.S.'s entry into the war?