tax bill

[XtremeJibber2001]

the bold negates your entire fallacy...get back to me in 2027 on this..till then many people will be very happy to have MORE in their checks...especially those making the mean of 50k...

I'm discussing the tax plan as actually passed, not how you think it might become. The average 50K earner will save as much as 1.6% in after-tax income. Some will end up paying more in taxes.

Gump's kids will get millions.

Link?

Tax Policy Center

Estate tax doubled from 11M to 22M, 40% of 11M = 4.4M in estate tax savings for GumpKids and the like.

Ah okay. Seems apple and oranges to compare income taxes to estate taxes.

You seem to think the government somehow has rights to your savings after your death, and the larger they are, the more rights the government has. I have trouble with that. I'm not against estate taxes, but your approach is born from something other than a fair share. It has to do with eliminating "princes". And don't forget that state estate taxes essentially double the federal.

Our government exercises the rights we the people confer to it. If we end up with a uncrossable chasm between the top and everyone else, history tells us what will happen. The estate tax allows some of the capital created with the help of the system to be returned to the system so others have an opportunity to create value. Nothing wrong with that,

So why don't we establish a flat tax on estates? After all, anything you or I pass to children will be capital created with the help of the 'system'. Seems at odds with your views to only tax the rich, shouldn't everyone pay their 'fair share'?

[Kpdemello]

Why should anyone pay an estate tax?

Why should anyone be allowed to pass on their possessions to their kids after they die?pretty self explanatory...

Sure, property rights are yours during your life. But why should you have control over that property after you die? Is it still yours when you're dead? That doesn't make much logical sense. How can a corpse possess anything?

Why should your kids, who might have done absolutely nothing to accumulate that wealth, automatically get claim to it?

I'm not arguing that we should do away with inheritance, like I said earlier. I'm just questioning why there's some sacred right that a dead guy has over property the dead guy held while he was alive. To me, this is just a relic of feudalism - a means for the landed nobility to keep their property and power base concentrated.

We believe in capitalism, in a system where every person has the opportunity and the right to work hard and accumulate wealth. I submit that the concept of inheritance directly contradicts that ethos, because it allows people who have done no work, taken no risk, and added nothing to the economy to accumulate a vast sum of wealth just because a relative worked hard for it. That's not capitalism, it's feudalism.

Again, I'm not saying we should eliminate inheritance. I do believe parents should be able to pass on some of their possessions and wealth to their kids (particularly things like heirlooms and real estate, maybe some money, etc). But that concept starts to wear thin when you're talking about multi-millionaire and billionaire legacies. Why is it a good thing to have a rich dynasty composed of people who did nothing but be lucky enough to be born into the right family?

[Kpdemello]

ok sorry but you certainly feel entitled to that which others have worked for, that's a nonstarter for me...

I never said I was entitled to anything. The government costs money. It has to be paid for, and we structure a tax code to pay for it. I'm talking about what that tax code should be. Entitlement doesn't even enter the equation. Do you think anyone who is in favor of levying any kind of tax is doing it out of some idea that they are entitled to it? That doesn't make sense to me.

it's also incredibly short sighted...if my "life savings" is subject to forfeit it's going to be held in a location where you can't touch it...and you get ZERO...do you honestly imagine the wealthy ( or anyone with any means of resistence) is going to just sit by while you advocate for your govt to seize their assets?

No, and that's a good thing. We want people to do something with their assets, like fund businesses, rather than having it sit in some vault somewhere doing nothing. The reality is that this sort of thing goes on today. I'd be willing to bet that Trump's family, for instance, will pay very little (relatively speaking) in estate taxes compared to the size of their estate, because an army of lawyers will have structured it to most efficiently pass to the kids.

your premise is that you can advocate through govt the seizure of someone elses assets " for the greater good" another Marxist principle...you may not see it but your overwhelming ideological slant is definitely marxist...

That is in fact NOT my premise, nor have I ever said that. What I have said consistently throughout this thread is that the system of government costs money, and we have to figure out the best way to pay for it. That means taxes - income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, blah blah blah. I think Estate tax is a much less invasive way to pay for government than an income tax or a sales tax, and I would much prefer it to either of those. It's not ideological, it's practical.

Quick example - would you rather pay 5% sales tax during your life, or an estate tax after you die? Personally, I'd take option B.

[Coydog]

When you say, "don't get to deduct it", that means it is taxable - a tax on a tax.yet you are all for an estate tax....the politics of envy...

I'm pointing out the Gumpian hypocrisy of being all-in on taxing the taxes folks in Blue states pay, but objecting to taxing property over $11M of rich dead guys.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Sure, property rights are yours during your life. But why should you have control over that property after you die? Is it still yours when you're dead? That doesn't make much logical sense. How can a corpse possess anything?

Because when I'm alive I have a legal document drafted outlining who has control over my property?

[Mister Moose]

Sure, property rights are yours during your life. But why should you have control over that property after you die? Is it still yours when you're dead? That doesn't make much logical sense. How can a corpse possess anything?

Because when I'm alive I have a legal document drafted outlining who has control over my property?

Beat me to it.

I'm going to give away some of my millions to all my Kzone friends in a few years. Who wants in?






























Sorry, just making a point. And if I give you more than $14,000 , I have to pay 'gift' taxes, which operate like deferred estate taxes.

[Dickc]

Sure, property rights are yours during your life. But why should you have control over that property after you die? Is it still yours when you're dead? That doesn't make much logical sense. How can a corpse possess anything?

Because when I'm alive I have a legal document drafted outlining who has control over my property?

Beat me to it.

I'm going to give away some of my millions to all my Kzone friends in a few years. Who wants in?

I'll sign up for your beer fridge!

[madhatter]

Sure, property rights are yours during your life. But why should you have control over that property after you die? Is it still yours when you're dead? That doesn't make much logical sense. How can a corpse possess anything?

Because when I'm alive I have a legal document drafted outlining who has control over my property?

yep...its YOUR property to do with as you please...sorry mello but you can pretend what ever you want but you want to claim someone else's property for the greater good...NO...and yes you feel entitled to it no matter what you claim to the contrary...that you say its for the greater good doesn't change the fact that YOU want to decide what OTHERS do with THEIR property...

your premise is that you can advocate through govt the seizure of someone elses assets " for the greater good" another Marxist principle...you may not see it but your overwhelming ideological slant is definitely marxist...

depite your claims to the contrary this is exactly what you advocate for...paying for what you see as worthy with money seized from someone else...

[Kpdemello]

Sure, property rights are yours during your life. But why should you have control over that property after you die? Is it still yours when you're dead? That doesn't make much logical sense. How can a corpse possess anything?

Because when I'm alive I have a legal document drafted outlining who has control over my property?

Cute but the reason you can do that is because governments passed laws setting up a system that allows it and enforces it. Otherwise whoever happens to be in possession of that property after you die could just take it, right?

My question goes to why the laws are written that way. In other words, why should the government enforce some instructions left by a dead guy regarding who gets the property he owned while he was alive? And I'm not just talking about estate taxes here - if a guy decides to stiff his wife and kids and leave all his property to the Kzone folks after he dies, why should that be allowed? (in some states that in fact is not allowed).

[Kpdemello]

yep...its YOUR property to do with as you please...sorry mello but you can pretend what ever you want but you want to claim someone else's property for the greater good...NO...and yes you feel entitled to it no matter what you claim to the contrary...that you say its for the greater good doesn't change the fact that YOU want to decide what OTHERS do with THEIR property...

Well I guess this ends our conversation, since you don't want to listen to what I *actually* say and instead would rather substitute what you *want* me to say.

your premise is that you can advocate through govt the seizure of someone elses assets " for the greater good" another Marxist principle...you may not see it but your overwhelming ideological slant is definitely marxist...

depite your claims to the contrary this is exactly what you advocate for...paying for what you see as worthy with money seized from someone else...

I mean, that's not at all my premise. You're setting up a nice straw man, though. It certainly makes it easier for you to label someone as a Marxist or some other label that lets you ignore everything they say so you don't have to actually engage the ideas presented.

[madhatter]

yep...its YOUR property to do with as you please...sorry mello but you can pretend what ever you want but you want to claim someone else's property for the greater good...NO...and yes you feel entitled to it no matter what you claim to the contrary...that you say its for the greater good doesn't change the fact that YOU want to decide what OTHERS do with THEIR property...

Well I guess this ends our conversation, since you don't want to listen to what I *actually* say and instead would rather substitute what you *want* me to say.

your premise is that you can advocate through govt the seizure of someone elses assets " for the greater good" another Marxist principle...you may not see it but your overwhelming ideological slant is definitely marxist...

depite your claims to the contrary this is exactly what you advocate for...paying for what you see as worthy with money seized from someone else...

I mean, that's not at all my premise. You're setting up a nice straw man, though. It certainly makes it easier for you to label someone as a Marxist or some other label that lets you ignore everything they say so you don't have to actually engage the ideas presented.

BULLSH!T...you lack the self awareness necessary to see it...

you advocate for gov to do your bidding in the name of what you consider the greater good...then vehemently deny it...

[Kpdemello]

BULLSH!T...you lack the self awareness necessary to see it...

you advocate for gov to do your bidding in the name of what you consider the greater good...then vehemently deny it...

Child please... you have a very obvious conservative ideological bent and you see anyone with any perceived leftward-leaning ideas as a Marxist, then ignore everything they say as if Marxism is somehow inherently evil. That's about as closed minded as it gets.

Here's a thought. It's possible that Karl Marx had some good ideas, even though his overall system in execution was crap. In fact, some good things like the graduated income tax, social security, and public utilities were based on his ideas. Marx was just a philosopher, and it's possible to take the few good ideas that he had and use them to improve society. Similarly, while I'm pro-capitalism in general, I think that unbridled capitalism is a recipe for disaster (and history has proved it so). There's no one set of ideas that cures all ills.

We've got to take the stuff that works and use it to make life better, regardless of how some people might label it.

[XtremeJibber2001]

My question goes to why the laws are written that way. In other words, why should the government enforce some instructions left by a dead guy regarding who gets the property he owned while he was alive? And I'm not just talking about estate taxes here - if a guy decides to stiff his wife and kids and leave all his property to the Kzone folks after he dies, why should that be allowed? (in some states that in fact is not allowed).

Because, like most our laws, they came from the British? Maybe your question is why did the British write their laws in such a fashion or why did we adopt their laws? Something tells me you know the answer. Are you proposing possessions after death should be the property of the Gov't?

[Kpdemello]

My question goes to why the laws are written that way. In other words, why should the government enforce some instructions left by a dead guy regarding who gets the property he owned while he was alive? And I'm not just talking about estate taxes here - if a guy decides to stiff his wife and kids and leave all his property to the Kzone folks after he dies, why should that be allowed? (in some states that in fact is not allowed).

Because, like most our laws, they came from the British? Maybe your question is why did the British write their laws in such a fashion, but something tells me you know the answer. Are you proposing possessions after death should be the property of the Gov't?

No. I'm trying to get at the philosophical underpinnings, the rationale, of the law. Why is it a good thing? Or is it a good thing? And yes, I do know where inheritance law came from - inheritance was a creature of feudal law. It was designed to allow lords to pass on their possessions to the eldest son to maintain the nobility. So in reality it is a very un-American idea.

What I'm getting at is that I don't think estate taxes are some inherent evil thing. And I don't think anyone has some kind of natural right to decide what happens to their possessions when they die. Further, I don't think anyone should have some inherent right to lay claim to the stuff that a relative worked for, accumulated, and saved just because they happen to be a relative.

I also don't believe that people's possessions should become the property of the government at death. But obviously we as a society have to decide how those possessions get distributed. It's a good thing to allow people to pass on some stuff, particularly heirlooms and things that have sentimental value, maybe real estate, and some amount of money. But estate taxes are a part of it, too, and practically speaking they are a good way to fund the government. They can also be a way to help mitigate the development of rich, powerful, dynastic families that could become, in effect, today's feudal nobility. (I don't know about you, but I don't want to bow down to a Lord Trump or Lord Clinton any time soon).

So estate taxes are not about entitlement, or interfering with someone's natural property rights, or anything like that. They're just a tool that can be used for good (or ill) in society. I've argued that they should be structured in a certain way (high, but only imposed on the very wealthy) and there's nothing at all controversial about that if you accept my premise above.

[madhatter]

BULLSH!T...you lack the self awareness necessary to see it...

you advocate for gov to do your bidding in the name of what you consider the greater good...then vehemently deny it...

Child please... you have a very obvious conservative ideological bent and you see anyone with any perceived leftward-leaning ideas as a Marxist, then ignore everything they say as if Marxism is somehow inherently evil. That's about as closed minded as it gets.

Here's a thought. It's possible that Karl Marx had some good ideas, even though his overall system in execution was crap. In fact, some good things like the graduated income tax, social security, and public utilities were based on his ideas. Marx was just a philosopher, and it's possible to take the few good ideas that he had and use them to improve society. Similarly, while I'm pro-capitalism in general, I think that unbridled capitalism is a recipe for disaster (and history has proved it so). There's no one set of ideas that cures all ills.

We've got to take the stuff that works and use it to make life better, regardless of how some people might label it.

yep greater good, collectivism, the state has absolute power over the people under the guise of "we"( any one opposed is irrelevant), your property becomes that of the state when the state says so ( death, 50% tax on "the wealthy" ) you again under the guise of "we" decide what constitutes "better", etc etc ...you advocate for the state to do your bidding in the name of what you consider "the greater good"...

that's a whole lot of marxism that I totally disagree with....even if you try to paint it as "melloism"...