tax bill

[XtremeJibber2001]

But I do think it's a good idea to allow for wills and inheritance to some degree. I just think it should be limited. I'd rather pay less taxes when I'm alive and have more taken out of my estate after I die. I think that makes a lot more practical sense. I also think it makes a lot of practical sense to discourage, to some degree, multi-millionaire and billionaire dynasties. I think those kinds of dynasties have formed a kind of elite nobility in the USA, and that's not a good thing.

Has any country implemented a system for inheritance like you describe?

[madhatter]

But I do think it's a good idea to allow for wills and inheritance to some degree. I just think it should be limited. I'd rather pay less taxes when I'm alive and have more taken out of my estate after I die. I think that makes a lot more practical sense. I also think it makes a lot of practical sense to discourage, to some degree, multi-millionaire and billionaire dynasties. I think those kinds of dynasties have formed a kind of elite nobility in the USA, and that's not a good thing.

Has any country implemented a system for inheritance like you describe?

yeah that makes sense

[Kpdemello]

Has any country implemented a system for inheritance like you describe?

I'm confused. Most countries on the planet have an estate tax?

[Kpdemello]

The problem is that you use the words "allow" and "some", as if the state allows what you can choose to bequeath. As you have stated many times, this about tax code, not what you are allowed to do with your assets. There is a very important difference there. Your tone, which is what MH is picking up on, uses wording that departs from private property ownership.

Yeah that's exactly right. When it comes to your property when you're alive, you have a right to it, in my view. The state has to have a really good reason for taking it, like taxes passed by the consent of the governed.

When it comes to your property after you die, well you're dead, and you're rights ended when you died. At that point, it's the survivors that decide what happens to that property. So no I don't believe in some fundamental right of a dead guy to decide what happens to his property after he dies. It's a different ball game. You can't take it with you when you die.

But I do think it's a good idea to allow for wills and inheritance to some degree. I just think it should be limited. I'd rather pay less taxes when I'm alive and have more taken out of my estate after I die. I think that makes a lot more practical sense. I also think it makes a lot of practical sense to discourage, to some degree, multi-millionaire and billionaire dynasties. I think those kinds of dynasties have formed a kind of elite nobility in the USA, and that's not a good thing.

I think you should read, very carefully, the sixth amendment to the US constitution. It clearly prohibits the government from just taking stuff.

Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

?

Perhaps you mean the fifth amendment?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Of course that bold part refers to eminent domain, not taxes, so... look at the sixteenth amendment.

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Also, you should note that there's a difference between a constitutional right, which is a practical application of government, and a theoretical right, which is what philosophers talk about while drinking beer at a bar. Most of what I'm saying in the above quote refers to theoretical rights.

[Dickc]

The problem is that you use the words "allow" and "some", as if the state allows what you can choose to bequeath. As you have stated many times, this about tax code, not what you are allowed to do with your assets. There is a very important difference there. Your tone, which is what MH is picking up on, uses wording that departs from private property ownership.

Yeah that's exactly right. When it comes to your property when you're alive, you have a right to it, in my view. The state has to have a really good reason for taking it, like taxes passed by the consent of the governed.

When it comes to your property after you die, well you're dead, and you're rights ended when you died. At that point, it's the survivors that decide what happens to that property. So no I don't believe in some fundamental right of a dead guy to decide what happens to his property after he dies. It's a different ball game. You can't take it with you when you die.

But I do think it's a good idea to allow for wills and inheritance to some degree. I just think it should be limited. I'd rather pay less taxes when I'm alive and have more taken out of my estate after I die. I think that makes a lot more practical sense. I also think it makes a lot of practical sense to discourage, to some degree, multi-millionaire and billionaire dynasties. I think those kinds of dynasties have formed a kind of elite nobility in the USA, and that's not a good thing.

I think you should read, very carefully, the sixth amendment to the US constitution. It clearly prohibits the government from just taking stuff.

Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

?

Perhaps you mean the fifth amendment?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Of course that bold part refers to eminent domain, not taxes, so... look at the sixteenth amendment.

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Also, you should note that there's a difference between a constitutional right, which is a practical application of government, and a theoretical right, which is what philosophers talk about while drinking beer at a bar. Most of what I'm saying in the above quote refers to theoretical rights.

Sorry, I meant the fourth amendment. It protects against unreasonable seizures and pretty well prevents the government from seizing anything without due process. It would seem to me to create a high bar toward preventing a confiscatory inheritance tax. My personal view is that there should be no inheritance taxes as everything you have after death as assets has already been taxed and that should be enough.

[Kpdemello]

My personal view is that there should be no inheritance taxes as everything you have after death as assets has already been taxed and that should be enough.

Ah, you are clearly a member of the middle class. Do you know how I know? Because if you were in the wealthy class, you would know that wealthy people have lots and lots of assets that are *never* subject to taxation during a person's life.

Take for example Bob the Billionaire, who started Company A. Company A was worth nothing when he started it, but eventually it grew, went public, and became worth $5.2 billion. Bob owns Company A via the common stock that he issued to himself when he started the company. He never sold any of it, and at his death his stock was valued at $3.2 billion. That company stock does not include any of the dividends or income paid to Bob from Company A during his life. When Bob dies, he leaves all his common stock in Company A to his hot 23 year old wife Melinda. That $3.2 billion in common stock that Melinda inherited will be subject to taxation for the very first time via the estate tax at Bob's death.

That's just one example but there are plenty of others. Wealthy people typically don't pay taxes the same way the rest of us do. The estate tax is one way to tax the super wealthy without burdening the middle class, so long as you set the estate tax threshold the way the federal government does it (federal estate tax only applies to estates larger than $5 million in assets).

P.S. I believe you have misconstrued the 4th amendment but that's another discussion for another day.

[Dickc]

My personal view is that there should be no inheritance taxes as everything you have after death as assets has already been taxed and that should be enough.

Ah, you are clearly a member of the middle class. Do you know how I know? Because if you were in the wealthy class, you would know that wealthy people have lots and lots of assets that are *never* subject to taxation during a person's life.

Take for example Bob the Billionaire, who started Company A. Company A was worth nothing when he started it, but eventually it grew, went public, and became worth $5.2 billion. Bob owns Company A via the common stock that he issued to himself when he started the company. He never sold any of it, and at his death his stock was valued at $3.2 billion. That company stock does not include any of the dividends or income paid to Bob from Company A during his life. When Bob dies, he leaves all his common stock in Company A to his hot 23 year old wife Melinda. That $3.2 billion in common stock that Melinda inherited will be subject to taxation for the very first time via the estate tax at Bob's death.

That's just one example but there are plenty of others. Wealthy people typically don't pay taxes the same way the rest of us do. The estate tax is one way to tax the super wealthy without burdening the middle class, so long as you set the estate tax threshold the way the federal government does it (federal estate tax only applies to estates larger than $5 million in assets).

P.S. I believe you have misconstrued the 4th amendment but that's another discussion for another day.

Let's take the example of the New York Yankees. The owner, George Steinbrenner, died in the year there was no estate tax. He was able to pass the enterprise on to his two sons. Neither of them was forced by virtue of an estate tax to sell a BIG part of the team to be able to satisfy Uncle Sam. They were able to inherit the enterprise wholly untouched and maintain the control that Yankees fans have been quite fortunate to enjoy. Now IF the two sons decided to sell that team now, the cost basis for it would be what their father paid for it, which was in the millions range. It's now worth 3.2 billion. That would be a lot of Capitol gains. When an estate goes through the estate tax process, everything gets a current value. You pay the estate tax based on that value, but the cost basis after tax is what it was valued at when taxed so the Capitol gains disappear. Not having an estate tax still leaves you subject to Capitol gains if you sell any of the assets. Its not like they go untaxed without an estate tax. I really do not believe it is in anyone's best interest to have to sell large assets to pay tax as that forces an ownership change that can be bad for all involved.


In your example, the "hot" 23 year old wife who inherits that company. She may either have to sell it, or watch in fall apart. Now IF Bob had willed it to his two sons who have worked at that organization for 25-30 years, they understand how it's run, who it's valuable employees are, and how to keep it running and keep everyone employed and happy. I would much rather that then give the IRS money that the government will blow on stuff that will NOT help the employees of that fictional company.

Yes, people make dumb choices in their will, but most, if not all, make good choices and we should stay out of the business of picking winners and losers.

[Kpdemello]

Let's take the example of the New York Yankees. The owner, George Steinbrenner, died in the year there was no estate tax. He was able to pass the enterprise on to his two sons. Neither of them was forced by virtue of an estate tax to sell a BIG part of the team to be able to satisfy Uncle Sam. They were able to inherit the enterprise wholly untouched and maintain the control that Yankees fans have been quite fortunate to enjoy. Now IF the two sons decided to sell that team now, the cost basis for it would be what their father paid for it, which was in the millions range. It's now worth 3.2 billion. That would be a lot of Capitol gains.

What a great example! To date, since Steinbrenner died, NO ONE has paid ANY taxes on the capitol gain that the New York Yankees has made. Meanwhile, you have two lucky sperm who inherited billions of dollars literally tax free. If they don't sell it in their lifetime, they will never pay taxes on that money.

Besides that, your point about people being fortunate that lucky sperm inherited the franchise tax free is a bit of a red herring. If they had to pay estate taxes, they could either have borrowed the money, sold part of it, or perhaps it might be possible that they had lots and lots of other assets they could have used to pay the tax. Even if they had to sell the whole thing, it would not have affected fans, as its not like the yankees would have just gone out of business. The same way that Microsoft, IBM, or any other major company would not just go out of business due to uber wealthy ownership change.

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about people like you and me. I'm talking about people like Bill Gates kids and Steinbrenner's kids. These people not only won't have any trouble paying high estate taxes, it really wouldn't even affect their life in the slightest bit.

When an estate goes through the estate tax process, everything gets a current value. You pay the estate tax based on that value, but the cost basis after tax is what it was valued at when taxed so the Capitol gains disappear. Not having an estate tax still leaves you subject to Capitol gains if you sell any of the assets.

The problem is, a rich person could never sell the asset. It is possible to inherit an asset and use the equity in it for a life time without paying any or paying very little taxes (e.g. by taking loans against the asset). Or, lucky sperm could sell it at a time when the capital gain is less or non existent (rich people often use fluctuations in the market to accumulate capital losses to avoid taxation). Besides that, capitol gains rates are a hell of a lot lower than estate tax rates.

I really do not believe it is in anyone's best interest to have to sell large assets to pay tax as that forces an ownership change that can be bad for all involved.

I don't see the downside here. The people receiving the assets (children of rich people? Spouse? Someone they met at a bar?) are going to benefit from inheriting a large sum. Businesses change ownership all the time. Why do we care if a lucky sperm has to sell something to pay the estate tax? The lucky sperm still ends up with a huge windfall (assuming the estate tax is less than 100%, which probably would be a bad idea). Besides, maybe the new owners will be better business people. Children who inherit in my experience tend to be less likely to be skilled business people than self-made business people.

In your example, the "hot" 23 year old wife who inherits that company. She may either have to sell it, or watch in fall apart. Now IF Bob had willed it to his two sons who have worked at that organization for 25-30 years, they understand how it's run, who it's valuable employees are, and how to keep it running and keep everyone employed and happy. I would much rather that then give the IRS money that the government will blow on stuff that will NOT help the employees of that fictional company.

Yes, people make dumb choices in their will, but most, if not all, make good choices and we should stay out of the business of picking winners and losers.

Well, if you define "loser" as anyone who has to pay taxes, which is what you seem to be saying, then we *have* to pick winners and losers, or else the government doesn't get funded. I'd rather the "losers" be the people who can most afford it, i.e. super wealthy people.

Again, you seem to make the assumption that I'm talking about struggling mom and pop business owner who built this business with their own sweat and are just trying to pass things on to their kids without them having to sell to big scary bank guy. That's something that exists in hollywood movies, not real life. The current estate tax threshold is $5 mil. Anyone who is going to inherit a business with that value is going to inherit a HUGE windfall.

That being said, in your example, you note the two sons toiling away in the business for decades. If mom and pop were smart, they would have a succession plan in place to transfer the company to those kids before they died. Life insurance combined with passing on some shares of the company to the kids during their life would likely be more than sufficient.

But even if mom and pop didn't bother with a succession plan, I'm really not going to feel bad for a child who inherits a multi-million dollar company that he has to sell to pay some estate taxes. Said child is still going to inherit millions of dollars. If the sons really want to keep the business, there are lots of options, not least of which is getting a loan on the business assets. But either way, the kids are going to be just fine. Unlike people like you and me, who will continue to have to work and pay high income taxes on every dollar we earn just to put food on the table.

As for the employees of said company, you're assuming a change of ownership will be bad for them. It might not be - it might be better. Maybe those kids who inherited the company are total assholes who were going to run it into the ground. Lots of businesses change ownership with varying results, some good and some bad. My dad worked for a company that went through three mergers in the course of 20 years. He suffered no problems. I don't think your hypothetical scenario provides any real rationale for doing away with an estate tax. It's a nice plot for a movie, not a good basis for tax policy.

[madhatter]

gimme gimme gimme you rich people...

.

[Bubba]

Let's take the example of the New York Yankees. The owner, George Steinbrenner, died in the year there was no estate tax. He was able to pass the enterprise on to his two sons. Neither of them was forced by virtue of an estate tax to sell a BIG part of the team to be able to satisfy Uncle Sam. They were able to inherit the enterprise wholly untouched and maintain the control that Yankees fans have been quite fortunate to enjoy. Now IF the two sons decided to sell that team now, the cost basis for it would be what their father paid for it, which was in the millions range. It's now worth 3.2 billion. That would be a lot of Capitol gains.

What a great example! To date, since Steinbrenner died, NO ONE has paid ANY taxes on the capitol gain that the New York Yankees has made. Meanwhile, you have two lucky sperm who inherited billions of dollars literally tax free. If they don't sell it in their lifetime, they will never pay taxes on that money.

Besides that, your point about people being fortunate that lucky sperm inherited the franchise tax free is a bit of a red herring. If they had to pay estate taxes, they could either have borrowed the money, sold part of it, or perhaps it might be possible that they had lots and lots of other assets they could have used to pay the tax. Even if they had to sell the whole thing, it would not have affected fans, as its not like the yankees would have just gone out of business. The same way that Microsoft, IBM, or any other major company would not just go out of business due to uber wealthy ownership change.

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about people like you and me. I'm talking about people like Bill Gates kids and Steinbrenner's kids. These people not only won't have any trouble paying high estate taxes, it really wouldn't even affect their life in the slightest bit.

When an estate goes through the estate tax process, everything gets a current value. You pay the estate tax based on that value, but the cost basis after tax is what it was valued at when taxed so the Capitol gains disappear. Not having an estate tax still leaves you subject to Capitol gains if you sell any of the assets.

The problem is, a rich person could never sell the asset. It is possible to inherit an asset and use the equity in it for a life time without paying any or paying very little taxes (e.g. by taking loans against the asset). Or, lucky sperm could sell it at a time when the capital gain is less or non existent (rich people often use fluctuations in the market to accumulate capital losses to avoid taxation). Besides that, capitol gains rates are a hell of a lot lower than estate tax rates.

I really do not believe it is in anyone's best interest to have to sell large assets to pay tax as that forces an ownership change that can be bad for all involved.

I don't see the downside here. The people receiving the assets (children of rich people? Spouse? Someone they met at a bar?) are going to benefit from inheriting a large sum. Businesses change ownership all the time. Why do we care if a lucky sperm has to sell something to pay the estate tax? The lucky sperm still ends up with a huge windfall (assuming the estate tax is less than 100%, which probably would be a bad idea). Besides, maybe the new owners will be better business people. Children who inherit in my experience tend to be less likely to be skilled business people than self-made business people.

In your example, the "hot" 23 year old wife who inherits that company. She may either have to sell it, or watch in fall apart. Now IF Bob had willed it to his two sons who have worked at that organization for 25-30 years, they understand how it's run, who it's valuable employees are, and how to keep it running and keep everyone employed and happy. I would much rather that then give the IRS money that the government will blow on stuff that will NOT help the employees of that fictional company.

Yes, people make dumb choices in their will, but most, if not all, make good choices and we should stay out of the business of picking winners and losers.

Well, if you define "loser" as anyone who has to pay taxes, which is what you seem to be saying, then we *have* to pick winners and losers, or else the government doesn't get funded. I'd rather the "losers" be the people who can most afford it, i.e. super wealthy people.

Again, you seem to make the assumption that I'm talking about struggling mom and pop business owner who built this business with their own sweat and are just trying to pass things on to their kids without them having to sell to big scary bank guy. That's something that exists in hollywood movies, not real life. The current estate tax threshold is $5 mil. Anyone who is going to inherit a business with that value is going to inherit a HUGE windfall.

That being said, in your example, you note the two sons toiling away in the business for decades. If mom and pop were smart, they would have a succession plan in place to transfer the company to those kids before they died. Life insurance combined with passing on some shares of the company to the kids during their life would likely be more than sufficient.

But even if mom and pop didn't bother with a succession plan, I'm really not going to feel bad for a child who inherits a multi-million dollar company that he has to sell to pay some estate taxes. Said child is still going to inherit millions of dollars. If the sons really want to keep the business, there are lots of options, not least of which is getting a loan on the business assets. But either way, the kids are going to be just fine. Unlike people like you and me, who will continue to have to work and pay high income taxes on every dollar we earn just to put food on the table.

As for the employees of said company, you're assuming a change of ownership will be bad for them. It might not be - it might be better. Maybe those kids who inherited the company are total assholes who were going to run it into the ground. Lots of businesses change ownership with varying results, some good and some bad. My dad worked for a company that went through three mergers in the course of 20 years. He suffered no problems. I don't think your hypothetical scenario provides any real rationale for doing away with an estate tax. It's a nice plot for a movie, not a good basis for tax policy.

Not that anyone should sneeze at $5 Million but, in today's world, that amount is bubkes in terms of estate values. Lots of "comfortable" middle class people have estates totaling in that range when you factor in real estate and stocks so, while you're referring to the rich, you're currently sticking it to many in the middle class.

[madhatter]

Let's take the example of the New York Yankees. The owner, George Steinbrenner, died in the year there was no estate tax. He was able to pass the enterprise on to his two sons. Neither of them was forced by virtue of an estate tax to sell a BIG part of the team to be able to satisfy Uncle Sam. They were able to inherit the enterprise wholly untouched and maintain the control that Yankees fans have been quite fortunate to enjoy. Now IF the two sons decided to sell that team now, the cost basis for it would be what their father paid for it, which was in the millions range. It's now worth 3.2 billion. That would be a lot of Capitol gains.

What a great example! To date, since Steinbrenner died, NO ONE has paid ANY taxes on the capitol gain that the New York Yankees has made. Meanwhile, you have two lucky sperm who inherited billions of dollars literally tax free. If they don't sell it in their lifetime, they will never pay taxes on that money.

Besides that, your point about people being fortunate that lucky sperm inherited the franchise tax free is a bit of a red herring. If they had to pay estate taxes, they could either have borrowed the money, sold part of it, or perhaps it might be possible that they had lots and lots of other assets they could have used to pay the tax. Even if they had to sell the whole thing, it would not have affected fans, as its not like the yankees would have just gone out of business. The same way that Microsoft, IBM, or any other major company would not just go out of business due to uber wealthy ownership change.

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about people like you and me. I'm talking about people like Bill Gates kids and Steinbrenner's kids. These people not only won't have any trouble paying high estate taxes, it really wouldn't even affect their life in the slightest bit.

When an estate goes through the estate tax process, everything gets a current value. You pay the estate tax based on that value, but the cost basis after tax is what it was valued at when taxed so the Capitol gains disappear. Not having an estate tax still leaves you subject to Capitol gains if you sell any of the assets.

The problem is, a rich person could never sell the asset. It is possible to inherit an asset and use the equity in it for a life time without paying any or paying very little taxes (e.g. by taking loans against the asset). Or, lucky sperm could sell it at a time when the capital gain is less or non existent (rich people often use fluctuations in the market to accumulate capital losses to avoid taxation). Besides that, capitol gains rates are a hell of a lot lower than estate tax rates.

I really do not believe it is in anyone's best interest to have to sell large assets to pay tax as that forces an ownership change that can be bad for all involved.

I don't see the downside here. The people receiving the assets (children of rich people? Spouse? Someone they met at a bar?) are going to benefit from inheriting a large sum. Businesses change ownership all the time. Why do we care if a lucky sperm has to sell something to pay the estate tax? The lucky sperm still ends up with a huge windfall (assuming the estate tax is less than 100%, which probably would be a bad idea). Besides, maybe the new owners will be better business people. Children who inherit in my experience tend to be less likely to be skilled business people than self-made business people.

In your example, the "hot" 23 year old wife who inherits that company. She may either have to sell it, or watch in fall apart. Now IF Bob had willed it to his two sons who have worked at that organization for 25-30 years, they understand how it's run, who it's valuable employees are, and how to keep it running and keep everyone employed and happy. I would much rather that then give the IRS money that the government will blow on stuff that will NOT help the employees of that fictional company.

Yes, people make dumb choices in their will, but most, if not all, make good choices and we should stay out of the business of picking winners and losers.

Well, if you define "loser" as anyone who has to pay taxes, which is what you seem to be saying, then we *have* to pick winners and losers, or else the government doesn't get funded. I'd rather the "losers" be the people who can most afford it, i.e. super wealthy people.

Again, you seem to make the assumption that I'm talking about struggling mom and pop business owner who built this business with their own sweat and are just trying to pass things on to their kids without them having to sell to big scary bank guy. That's something that exists in hollywood movies, not real life. The current estate tax threshold is $5 mil. Anyone who is going to inherit a business with that value is going to inherit a HUGE windfall.

That being said, in your example, you note the two sons toiling away in the business for decades. If mom and pop were smart, they would have a succession plan in place to transfer the company to those kids before they died. Life insurance combined with passing on some shares of the company to the kids during their life would likely be more than sufficient.

But even if mom and pop didn't bother with a succession plan, I'm really not going to feel bad for a child who inherits a multi-million dollar company that he has to sell to pay some estate taxes. Said child is still going to inherit millions of dollars. If the sons really want to keep the business, there are lots of options, not least of which is getting a loan on the business assets. But either way, the kids are going to be just fine. Unlike people like you and me, who will continue to have to work and pay high income taxes on every dollar we earn just to put food on the table.

As for the employees of said company, you're assuming a change of ownership will be bad for them. It might not be - it might be better. Maybe those kids who inherited the company are total assholes who were going to run it into the ground. Lots of businesses change ownership with varying results, some good and some bad. My dad worked for a company that went through three mergers in the course of 20 years. He suffered no problems. I don't think your hypothetical scenario provides any real rationale for doing away with an estate tax. It's a nice plot for a movie, not a good basis for tax policy.

Not that anyone should sneeze at $5 Million but, in today's world, that amount is bubkes in terms of estate values. Lots of "comfortable" middle class people have estates totaling in that range when you factor in real estate and stocks so, while you're referring to the rich, you're currently sticking it to many in the middle class.

cuz there already ain't enough "rich people" to take from...and once their stuff is confiscated then a whole new class of "rich people " will need to be defined and taxed...till there are no "rich" no more...well except that governing class who are of course exempt...

[Kpdemello]

cuz there already ain't enough "rich people" to take from...and once their stuff is confiscated then a whole new class of "rich people " will need to be defined and taxed...till there are no "rich" no more...well except that governing class who are of course exempt...

Take a look at the white house, dude. Billionaires are the governing class.

Even before the Orange One took office, billionaires were the governing class. Who do you think paid for those multi-hundred-million-dollar campaigns? (Democrats and Republicans)

[Kpdemello]

Not that anyone should sneeze at $5 Million but, in today's world, that amount is bubkes in terms of estate values. Lots of "comfortable" middle class people have estates totaling in that range when you factor in real estate and stocks so, while you're referring to the rich, you're currently sticking it to many in the middle class.

We can quibble about the threshold value, but I think $5 mil is a pretty good spot. You stop being middle class when you have that much in assets. The overwhelming majority of middle class people retire with less than that in assets.

What we really should do is have a graduated estate tax, but honestly rich people hire skilled attorneys and lobbyists to avoid having to pay much in estate taxes anyway. It's been a cat and mouse game between the wealthy and the taxman for centuries.

[madhatter]

cuz there already ain't enough "rich people" to take from...and once their stuff is confiscated then a whole new class of "rich people " will need to be defined and taxed...till there are no "rich" no more...well except that governing class who are of course exempt...

Take a look at the white house, dude. Billionaires are the governing class.

Even before the Orange One took office, billionaires were the governing class. Who do you think paid for those multi-hundred-million-dollar campaigns? (Democrats and Republicans)

you are completely out of touch w reality...you keep saying the same thing over and over...politics of envy...got it...

[madhatter]

Not that anyone should sneeze at $5 Million but, in today's world, that amount is bubkes in terms of estate values. Lots of "comfortable" middle class people have estates totaling in that range when you factor in real estate and stocks so, while you're referring to the rich, you're currently sticking it to many in the middle class.

We can quibble about the threshold value, but I think $5 mil is a pretty good spot. You stop being middle class when you have that much in assets. The overwhelming majority of middle class people retire with less than that in assets.

What we really should do is have a graduated estate tax, but honestly rich people hire skilled attorneys and lobbyists to avoid having to pay much in estate taxes anyway. It's been a cat and mouse game between the havesand thethose who envy and want for themselvesfor centuries.

yep... remind us all again exactly what of mine you are entitled to and why...