Thread: The imitaors!

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Warren Buffet describes the abolition of the estate tax as turning control of the country over to people who have done no work for the privilege.

j

"I, Mark Twain, being of sound mind, have spent everything."

And I define the estate tax as stealing the life of ease I worked to earn for my descendants.

Lets put it this way:

If I am alive will the government be allowed to keep my from building a house for my child, or giving him a Ferrari ? No.

Why in hell would they automatically get that right just because I had the misfortune to die.

Wonder if Bill Gates estate Taxes would balance the national debt? Maybe the army should assassinate him for the cash

Rich people did not get rich by not caring about money.
If you honestly believe that someone who owns 100 million dollars is content to let the state get its hands on most of the money, then I think you are in for a surprise.

The current US annual budget is 3 Trillion dollars per year.
There are 1.4 million US millionaires, having an average of 2.2 million each.
I just pulled these numbers of the internet without much research. The actual value may differ, but the magnitudes will be correct.

If they all died this year, and left everything to the state instead of only everything > 2 million, That would provide the annual budget for 1 year.
and next year, there would be no millionaires anymore. No federal income. No government.

So
a) even if people did what you'd expect them to do, there would not enough money to go around.
b) again, noone would do this. No sane man would let all his money go to the state. I wouldn't. My parents wouldn't, none of my friends would... In fact, I don't know anyone who would be silly enough to not get rid of his money in advance.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

...The only other option is to allow these dynastic oligarchies to continue until they so corrupt our government and our economy that we have no choice but to revolt and kill them all.

What the heck are you talking about? How and why would you revolt and kill a dynastic oligarchy? The more I try to imagine your proposed solution, the more confused I get. Are you an imitaor?

I'm a little dense, and therefore find that I get about as much out of reading the first and last sentence of your posts as I do when I read them in their entirety. So if you have already answered my question, now you'll understand why I asked it anyway

Originally Posted by Bruno

No sane man would let all his money go to the state.

Then why send them any money at all? (The more I imagine my proposed solution, the more confused I get. But at least in my scenario, there are still dynastic oligarchies I can send more money to)

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Second is the notion that this would prevent you from passing on valuables to your children as their inheritance. Remember, I did not claim that such a tax would take everything you possessed at the moment of your death, merely everything above and beyond $2million, with exceptions for family farms and businesses. This is so you can pass things down to your children, whether it be family heirlooms or cold hard cash. For the average American family with 2 kids, this amounts to a million dollars apiece. If that's not enough to secure their futures, then no amount would be.

$2 million these days isn't that much, and I'd suspect that in ten years it will be worth even less. Inflation aside, how are things to be valued? We think that a frameback W&B here is worth $100-$200, but many collectors can be flamboozeled (I like the word, ok) into paying double. What is an heirloom really worth? Land value is skyrocketing, so it'll basically come down to leaving land and a house to my kids or cash. Dammit, I want to leave both!

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Third is the worry that, as time progresses, government would encroach more and more on the amount of money they reserve for themselves. Rather than be content with 10% of the take, they would seek to increase it. I worry about this as well, but there are a number of possible remedies. One would be a constitutional amendment establishing this as the limit. Another could be setting the bar for increasing the take government can get as high as it is for constitutional amendments, that is, that it would require agreement by both House and Senate, as well as 3/4 of the states, and requiring that there always be a sunset provision in the increase that expires in 5 years or less. I would prefer the second, as emergencies might arise that might require government to have access to more resources, such as another World War or devastating environmental destruction from hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes or fires.

I think any constitutional amendment as to taxes of that sort is a terrible idea. I think we can stick with the current constitutional stance on taxes. If anything, let's strike the 16th amendment (but that's another conversation for another day).

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

As for the idea that you can in fact continue to own things after your death and even live on through your estate, this is nothing but legal hogwash. Once you die, you cannot change your mind about what your money or business is to be used for. Circumstances may change, and those circumstances may have changed your mind, were you still alive. Consider Sam Walton. As the man who made big box stores possible, he was an economic and retail genius. Indeed much of the growth experience by the US in the 80's can be attributed to the actions of Wal-Mart. But not least of this was because Walton made it a point to buy from American based manufacturers whenever possible. The savings he was able to pass on came largely from being able to make large bulk purchases, and not so much by squeezing the manufacturer for every dime he was worth. Since his retirement and death, Wal-Mart has shifted manufacturing to China, and in effect, impoverishing the middle class by denying them the higher-paying manufacturing jobs and making them abandon saving in order to continue to afford to buy at Wal-Mart. It is doubtful that Walton would have approved of the direction his company has taken since his death. But, guess what, he's dead and can't do crap about it. Once you die, the trajectory of your estate is as set as if it were written on your tombstone. With the living, nothing is set. The dead want for nothing, need nothing, and own nothing.

Well, that's the trouble with making your estate. You either lay it down carefully or not. If the way Wal-Mart is run is contrary to the way he would have run it, well, we'll never know.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Finally, the notion that if you can accumulate great sums of wealth you don't owe that accumulation to anybody else is far too narrow and selfishly individualistic. No wealthy man has ever accumulated his wealth without the contribution of others, often others long dead or very remote. Wal-Mart could not have accumulated the fortune for the Walton family that it did without the existence of interstate highways, which we all paid for. Bill Gates could not have developed the Windows operating system without the work of programmers prior to him, without scientists and researchers, or without a basic education provided by the public school system. That they accumulated such wealth is a tribute to their genius, no doubt, and while they live they deserve to fully enjoy the benefits such genius brings them. At the time of their death is the most natural and moral time to tax them, as they can no longer be deprived of anything by the tax. And a tax that prevents the passing on of exorbitant fortunes from being passed to those that didn't earn them, that have not show that they possess the genius it took to accumulate and maintain that fortune, nor that they posses the moral character to use such fortune well, is the best way to prevent oligarchic dynasties which are the most pernicious threat to a meritocratic democracy possible. The only other option is to allow these dynastic oligarchies to continue until they so corrupt our government and our economy that we have no choice but to revolt and kill them all.

Wow, this statement is crazy! So you're saying that not only do I owe my existence to every person in this country, I owe it to, hell, everyone that's EVER existed. It's time to start pulling out the ol' reparations checkbook again! All those people through history have been paid in full for their work. As for the roads, that is something that we as a society decided we would pay taxes from the sale of goods to pay for. Sam Walton doesn't owe me a dime for paying for a piece of pavement that I may have paid for.

Even more alarmingly though, in this new world, one must not only possess genius to be rich, but moral character? And you have to actually earn the money? Well I'll be...so what about people like George de Mestral that only observed and imitated? He definitely deserved his millions to be taken away. Or how about those darn Wright brothers? Those bastards just looked at birds and copied what they saw.

I'm sorry if that comes off as brash, but that's how I feel. If you stumbled upon some innovation (as many innovations happen), you deserve the money. If someone who did the stumbling leaves you the money, then it's yours! I'll agree, there are some insanely stupid, insanely rich people out there. They didn't do a damn thing for the money they've got and will continue to do nothing but spend it and act like idiots. It doesn't matter though- I know in my heart of hearts that I certainly didn't do anything to help them get their money, so I'm not entitled to it. Since the government is supposedly the people, it cannot lay claim to it either. The only people left are their idiot children. That's their choice, and it's their right to make it.

Why are we assuming that the estate tax takes everything above two million. Not even close.

Anybody know what the rate actually is?

My problem is this: I get taxed for every dime I make, by the state, the feds, the city -- anyone. Why should so rich bastard get hundreds of millions of income, tax-free, just because he chose the right parents?

It's income. Tax it. Or stop taxing mine.

j

Don't forget sales tax, property tax, capital gains tax. None of these rich people just sit on their money and do nothing with it. I don't recall what the number was, but the richest people pay the highest percentage of the overall tax burden. Where's your beef?

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

Don't forget sales tax, property tax, capital gains tax. None of these rich people just sit on their money and do nothing with it. I don't recall what the number was, but the richest people pay the highest percentage of the overall tax burden. Where's your beef?

Actually, the richest segment pays the lowest portion of their income in taxes -- under 20 percent.

And I did some research (it pained me, but what the hell?). The highest estate tax rate is 35 percent -- the same rate I pay the feds. And the exemption is going up next year to the first 3.5 million.

Somehow, my heart ain't bleedin for these poor, exploited rich bastards.

j

True, but that's also 35% on top of their already high income tax. I'm not bleeding for them either, but that's still more tax. If there were any change in taxes, I want income taxes made low and flat for everyone with the bulk of it made up with sales tax. Of course certain items would be exempt, like WIC type items, but basically, the more you buy, the more you pay. It's not perfect, but it's a start in the right direction (I think). This way too, the rich would pay more money as well. Yachts, sports cars, large homes, luxury clothing- things you and I don't/can't buy.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Why are we assuming that the estate tax takes everything above two million. Not even close.

Anybody know what the rate actually is?

My problem is this: I get taxed for every dime I make, by the state, the feds, the city -- anyone. Why should so rich bastard get hundreds of millions of income, tax-free, just because he chose the right parents?

It's income. Tax it. Or stop taxing mine.

j

It was taxed once when it was income by all the agencies you noted above. The government had their crack at it they shouldn't be allowed to tax it again just because someone died.

The people most often effected by the estate tax are not the rich. They hire professionals to plan their estates and structure their wealth to avoid the tax man when they die.

Those killed by it are most often the family farmer and rancher. Their entire wealth is in their land, they can't hide it, and 35% of a farm is far higher than the profit margin of the average farmer. To put this in perspective I have a friend who lives on a farm with a land value of over a million dollars, The house isn't up to either electric or plumbing codes and has a disintegrating foundation, many of the barns are barely standing and the farm makes so much money that the owners has a day job in order to make ends meet, yet a little over twice that value and they could be forced to sell a part of their heritage(the farm has been in the family for well over a century) if they want to pass it on. These are the "rich bastards" who pay the tax.

By the way the attitude that someone else is successful so penalize them is about the least american thing I have read on here.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

It was taxed once when it was income by all the agencies you noted above. The government had their crack at it they shouldn't be allowed to tax it again just because someone died.

The people most often effected by the estate tax are not the rich. They hire professionals to plan their estates and structure their wealth to avoid the tax man when they die.

Those killed by it are most often the family farmer and rancher. Their entire wealth is in their land, they can't hide it, and 35% of a farm is far higher than the profit margin of the average farmer. To put this in perspective I have a friend who lives on a farm with a land value of over a million dollars, The house isn't up to either electric or plumbing codes and has a disintegrating foundation, many of the barns are barely standing and the farm makes so much money that the owners has a day job in order to make ends meet, yet a little over twice that value and they could be forced to sell a part of their heritage(the farm has been in the family for well over a century) if they want to pass it on. These are the "rich bastards" who pay the tax.

By the way the attitude that someone else is successful so penalize them is about the least american thing I have read on here.

Money is taxed when it changes hands. Try it. For the recipient of the estate, it's income and it's only taxed that once. The only further tax is on income from investing it.

When pressed, the American Farm Bureau couldn't cite a single case of a family farm lost because of the estate tax. That's a lie told by politicians trying to transfer America's wealth from the middle class to their rich sponsors. Right now, the exemption for estate tax is two million. It rises to 3.5 million next year, which means that less than 4 percent of all business would even potentially be affected. Tell your farmer friend to get a good accountant and he's got nothing to worry about.

And don't believe everything that right wing talk radio tells you. They tend to misrepresent this stuff.

But I have to object to being called un-american. That's the last refuge of the scoundrel and the fact that you used it on me is unconscionable. If you can't do better than that, perhaps you should bow out.

j