The {Estate,Death} Tax

Posts of a more cerebral nature. Fair warning: if it's deemed useless by the mods, it'll be moved or deleted. That said, wow everyone with your theories or ideas of anything you can think of. We dare you.

Moderators: Philippe, Tyler, Tony, Johnson

The {Estate,Death} Tax

Postby mostL33T on Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:40 pm

All this talk about elections, and this Bush quote...
[The Democrat's philosophy is] if it breathes, tax it. And if it stops breathing, find their children, tax it.

... got me wondering what other people here thought about the estate tax.

Me, I'm totally fine with it. My view is that it helps take money that's been hoarded, in a sense, by the rich, and puts it back in circulation to use for the common good.

Is that the general view here, or are there people that think it's unfair?
User avatar
mostL33T
Registered User
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 4:03 am
Location: Maynard, MA

Postby Johnson on Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:11 am

I've never really thought about it, actually.

I will say, though, that that's the first genuinely funny thing Bush has said in my memory.
Steve wrote:Nintendo's like a deadbeat dad. It's really fun when he shows up on holidays, but the rest of the year it's just empty promises and false hope.
User avatar
Johnson
Founding Member, Faceless Warrior
 
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:32 pm
Location: Andover, MA

Postby monkeypunk on Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:34 pm

It affects me directly I suppose, but I have mixed feelings on it. On the one hand I agree that there's no real point in hoarding weath indefinately, and returning some of it to circulation is a good idea. However, I'm currently under a deadline if I want to go to college because after my grandmother dies, taxes take care of a large enough percent of her "estate" that I'd be on my own for about half my education expenses. That seems silly to me, but one can't exactly propose a law offering to let you keep themoney if you have good plans for it.

That said, Bush is still an idiot, and I'd rather those with money get taxed than those without any day.
Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker.
User avatar
monkeypunk
Boobsquad Pioneer
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 2:01 am
Location: lost

Postby WAxl on Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:27 am

Johnson wrote:I will say, though, that that's the first genuinely funny thing Bush has said in my memory.


"I said I was looking for a book to read, Laura said you ought to try Camus. I also read three Shakespeares. ... I've got a eck-a-lec-tic reading list."

also, I'm a big fan of taking even minor steps to redistribute wealth and to make it harder to inherit opulence. unfortunately, of course, there are loopholes in the estate tax that make it possible for primarily the very wealthy (those capable of retaining good lawyers and accountants) to get around a lot of estate taxation, but that's true for just about all taxation.
we're discussing penises. do you want to join?
Image
User avatar
WAxl
City Manager of Tuttle, Oklahoma
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:08 pm
Location: up in this bitch

Too late for many to read this post, but

Postby Peter Deeter on Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:31 pm

First of all, inherited wealth that is taxed is only as good as the administration that's spending it. Let's take Bill Gates for example. Should his remaining fortune get the fuck taxed out of it after he and his wife dies, then the current administration would continue using the money for corporate welfare and faith-based inititatives (such as the ever-successful 'abstinence only' educational programs) versus what his children MIGHT do with the money (whores, blow, and the purchase of small islands or the continued trend of charities and NPO's. Who knows?)

But this is beside the point. Coming at it from an accounting standpoint, this particular bit of earned income has been taxed once already. Is it fair for it to be taxed twice because it's management changes hands? Conservatives would say,

"That's bullshit! My great-great grand pappy worked those slaves hard for that money! Haven't we paid enough on it?"

Whereas Liberals would say,

"Money? MONEY!! GIMME IT, IT'S MINE! er... I mean... PUNISH THE RICH!"

So, Bush came up with (okokokok.. His ADMINISTRATION came up with) something as a compromise. It's not the death of the death tax. The legislation stipulates that nothing under $1 million will be taxed.

Personally, I think that's ok. It satisfies the part of me that's not really good with money by punishing the rich and gives a person like me who's been the beneficary of inherited money (about 50K after taxes) as well as a buddy who's in for a pretty penny to the IRS on about 800K after losing his father.

-Petey.
Peter Deeter
 

Re: The {Estate,Death} Tax

Postby Pan_theFrog on Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:43 am

I am amused that after all this time we are still talking about this topic.
So the new estate tax is expected to be 35% on everything over $3.5million (Same as if it was normal income), while the first $3.5million is transfered tax free.
So Daddy Moneybags dies and splits up his $20million between his three kids.
So each kid gets $6.67mil which breaks down to ($3.5mil tax free + ($3.17mil - 35% in taxes = $2.06mil)) for a take home of $5.57mil for each kid.
Now how many people actually have an estate worth more then $3.5mil...well, it is far less then 1% of the US population.
Pan_theFrog

The girls only like me for my tongue.
Pan_theFrog
Registered User
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:28 pm
Location: Here and now


Return to Intelligent Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron