Obama couldn't govern himself out of a wet paper bag

[Revoltingest]

This is after all a world where way too many people suffer all kinds of indignities for a miriad of reasons derived from lack of money.

Tsk, tsk, tsk....so you'd be tolerant of my being Jewish, gay, atheist, Muslim or even a vacuum
cleaner salesman....but not wealthy. Well, I sincerely hope to earn your scorn in a few years.

"Death Tax" is indeed a very loaded and unfair name for inheritance taxes, as others have already said.

People who like the tax think it's unfair. People who hate the tax think it's accurate...& fun.
One must understand that there are no absolutes here....just opinions & preferences.

People have no inate right to getting loads of money just because a rich relative died.

But many of us believe that rich people have a right to bequeath their wealth as they see fit.
There are no "innate" rights anyway.

 

[Requia]

We tax every other form of income, why should inheritance, especially inheritance of millions of dollars, be immune?

 

[LuisDantas]

Tsk, tsk, tsk....so you'd be tolerant of my being Jewish, gay, atheist, Muslim or even a vacuum
cleaner salesman....but not wealthy. Well, I sincerely hope to earn your scorn in a few years.

Best of luck. I'll give you full opportunity to buy my respect back.

People who like the tax think it's unfair. People who hate the tax think it's accurate...& fun.
One must understand that there are no absolutes here....just opinions & preferences.

Sorry, that doesn't match the facts. The inheritance taxes are not fully arbitrary. They only directly affect would-be inheritors of people of a certain wealth level, after all. That is very much an absolute fact, and I see no point in pretending otherwise.

As it turns out, that one fact is enough to make it less than enough to justify a true controversy.

But many of us believe that rich people have a right to bequeath their wealth as they see fit.

I'm well aware of that. In some ways I feel fortunate that I don't have to defend such a stance. From a moral standpoint it is a lost cause from the get go.

There are no "innate" rights anyway.

My spelling mistake, but thanks for the agreement.

 

[LuisDantas]

We tax every other form of income, why should inheritance, especially inheritance of millions of dollars, be immune?

Because dead rich people have a more pressing need to be arbitrary than anyone else, I suppose.

All things considered, it is a fairly funny idea for one to present.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I continue to find it absolutely laughable that the super-rich won't get their "fair share," while many Americans struggle to put food on the table through no fault of their own.

Don't you mean they struggle to live in houses they can't afford or pay cable, internet and cell phone bills? The majority of Americans are overweight. Your statement needs to be challenged, site please.

 

[Reverend Rick]

"Death Tax" is indeed a very loaded and unfair name for inheritance taxes, as others have already said. People have no inate right to getting loads of money just because a rich relative died.

So a person who is born on their farm who worked the farm since childhood should have to leave their farm and livelihood after working the land for 50+ years just because their parents died and they owe taxes they cannot afford to pay?

When faced with the fact that the farm had been in their family for generations, they should not have a problem with draconian 55% taxes that make it impossible to hand the land down to their children who have already worked the farm over 20 years?

These farms have already paid their taxes, the death tax is stealing from them and their children.

 

[Revoltingest]

Best of luck. I'll give you full opportunity to buy my respect back.

No, no....I'd rather be despised for my obscene wealth than respected for being one of the working poor.

Sorry, that doesn't match the facts. The inheritance taxes are not fully arbitrary. They only directly affect would-be inheritors of people of a certain wealth level, after all. That is very much an absolute fact, and I see no point in pretending otherwise.

Pretending, eh? Are you so certain that your musings on taxation are so true that I must be disingenuous? By "arbitrary", I mean that there is
no absolute morality which governs taxation. Haphazard political dealings result in greatly different tax structures at various times & places.
Examples: Right now, the death tax is zero, but it has been over 50% at times. We see a deal to lower the payroll tax for employees by 2%, but
the self-employed get no reduction. We tax self-employment income much higher than investment income. We pay ordinary income tax on loan
principal reduction, which is long term capital in nature. This all strikes me as rather arbitrary.

As it turns out, that one fact is enough to make it less than enough to justify a true controversy.

Say whuh?

I'm well aware of that. In some ways I feel fortunate that I don't have to defend such a stance. From a moral standpoint it is a lost cause from the get go.

You feel one way, but I see no reason to say that other ways are wrong. If one works to build something, it's reasonable to want control over what
one built. There will always be the socialist types who believe that the hive (ie, society) should control the individual. And there will always be (I hope)
the rugged individualists who demand more autonomy. Neither is right. Neither is wrong. They're just competing interests in any functioning society.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because dead rich people have a more pressing need to be arbitrary than anyone else, I suppose.
All things considered, it is a fairly funny idea for one to present.

Some entertainment for all the loyal apologists of our rapacious government.....
[youtube]Maz9ddxEQnM[/youtube]
YouTube - The Beatles - Taxman

 

[Magic Man]

That's a rather strict & arbitrary definition. But by your rationale, the estate tax would require that every estate would have to pay it. This also isn't the case.

Then call it the inheritance tax. According to your standards, that would be the most accurate, so that's what you should use to be consistent.

Methinks you're concerned with making taxes look benign, rather than in accuracy. I'm OK with both terms, since everyone knows what is meant.

I don't know about Sunstone, but I'm concerned with not intentionally making taxes sound sinister more than making them sound benign, but I'm also interested in accuracy. "Death tax" is highly inaccurate. I guess you don't really support the estate tax, then, if you're willing to use terms that specifically oppose it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then call it the inheritance tax.

But not every case of inheritance results in taxation either.
When the tax does get levied, it is always triggered by a single event, ie, someone dies.
(Note that neither death, inheritance nor having an estate will by itself be sufficient condition to cause the tax.)
You're beginning to convince me that "death tax" is the most accurate name, & that anything else is deceptive.
But I won't begrudge you for your government-friendly name of "estate tax". We all know what you mean.

According to your standards, that would be the most accurate, so that's what you should use to be consistent.

I have no standard. I merely point out that the Sunstone standard fails utterly.

I don't know about Sunstone, but I'm concerned with not intentionally making taxes sound sinister more than making them sound benign, but I'm also interested in accuracy.

I've shown that your name is just as inaccurate. But it makes sense that since you favor more taxes, you'd want a comforting name.
I prefer a fun & pithy name.

"Death tax" is highly inaccurate.

I remind you that this is not factual, but rather merely your opinion.

I guess you don't really support the estate tax, then, if you're willing to use terms that specifically oppose it.

'
I neither support nor oppose the death tax. They're gonna take taxes from us somehow...why not include that way?

 

[waitasec]

this is a little off topic but,
you know what gets my goat? when you're buying something, anything really, the taxes are not included. i find that offensive. i've shopped in other countries and the price includes the tax.
are we that dumb that we need to be tricked into thinking it is lower then it is?

 

[Revoltingest]

this is a little off topic but,
you know what gets my goat? when you're buying something, anything really, the taxes are not included. i find that offensive. i've shopped in other countries and the price includes the tax.
are we that dumb that we need to be tricked into thinking it is lower then it is?

The price charged by a store is what it is.
Tax added by the gov't is not part of the price.
And we should be aware of this added burden.

 

[LuisDantas]

So a person who is born on their farm who worked the farm since childhood should have to leave their farm and livelihood after working the land for 50+ years just because their parents died and they owe taxes they cannot afford to pay?

Does that actually happen? Everything is possible, I suppose, but I have a hard time believing such a scenario to be real.

When faced with the fact that the farm had been in their family for generations, they should not have a problem with draconian 55% taxes that make it impossible to hand the land down to their children who have already worked the farm over 20 years?

Out of curiosity, at what level of wealth is that expected to happen?

These farms have already paid their taxes, the death tax is stealing from them and their children.

Ownership of farms beyond a certain size is certainly not an inherent right of, well, anyone. Wealth is not a personal right. It is a privilege.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ownership of farms beyond a certain size is certainly not an inherent right of, well, anyone. Wealth is not a personal right. It is a privilege.

When you say wealth or ownership of farms isn't a right. Does that mean the gov't may just take either away on a whim?
There are advantages to a state recognizing property rights, without which there would be little incentive to build anything.
Taxation needn't destroy such rights.

 

[LuisDantas]

Pretending, eh? Are you so certain that your musings on taxation are so true that I must be disingenuous? By "arbitrary", I mean that there is no absolute morality which governs taxation.

Far from me to suggest otherwise. Taxes are managed by governments, and governments rarely even try to be moral. They are by definition ill equiped to do so even in the best of circunstances, anyway.

But I fail to see why that is relevant. Taxes are a matter of social and administrative concern, not of morals.

Haphazard political dealings result in greatly different tax structures at various times & places.

Of course. But taxes were never meant to be "fair". At their best they are tolerable and not too disruptive. That is the very nature of the beast, isn't it?

Examples: Right now, the death tax is zero, but it has been over 50% at times.

For everyone? Isn't there a minimum wealth cap of some kind?

We see a deal to lower the payroll tax for employees by 2%, but
the self-employed get no reduction.

Unfair, I agree.

We tax self-employment income much higher than investment income.

Ditto.

We pay ordinary income tax on loan principal reduction, which is long term capital in nature. This all strikes me as rather arbitrary.

No argument here.

Say whuh?

I sure do!

You feel one way, but I see no reason to say that other ways are wrong. If one works to build something, it's reasonable to want control over what one built.

Surely. What is not reasonable is to give that urge more attention than the fairly obvious social demands of the current world.

By the same token, it is reasonable to want to shoot strangers every now and then. But it is very unreasonable to actually do the deed.

There will always be the socialist types who believe that the hive (ie, society) should control the individual.

Yes. But how much of an actual danger are they? There are always people with the most exotic beliefs. Most so-called "socialists" are to be encouraged and have far less radical beliefs.

And there will always be (I hope) the rugged individualists who demand more autonomy. Neither is right. Neither is wrong. They're just competing interests in any functioning society.

So it would be, if the consequences of such a hands-off approach to life weren't so grim. Social reality gives everyone some rather clear duties.

 

[LuisDantas]

When you say wealth or ownership of farms isn't a right. Does that mean the gov't may just take either away on a whim?

Morally? Of course not. I'm all for voluntary, criterious giving away instead. I don't trust governments. My own people has just elected Dilma Roussef, for crying out loud.

There are advantages to a state recognizing property rights, without which there would be little incentive to build anything.

Of course, but that is hardly an argument against inheritance taxes. People will not avoid being rich just because the government will tax their inheritance.

 

[LuisDantas]

Don't you mean they struggle to live in houses they can't afford or pay cable, internet and cell phone bills? The majority of Americans are overweight. Your statement needs to be challenged, site please.

Are you implying that poverty and social differences are not enough of a real problem in the USA to deserve as much attention as excess weight and excess wealth/lack of purpose?

Not to diminish the seriousness of the later, but the earlier is something that must be addressed quite fiercely.

 

[Revoltingest]

Far from me to suggest otherwise. Taxes are managed by governments, and governments rarely even try to be moral. They are by definition ill equiped to do so even in the best of circunstances, anyway.
But I fail to see why that is relevant. Taxes are a matter of social and administrative concern, not of morals.

Like it or not, morals play a role in taxation. When a government dislikes a group or wants to discourage a practice, they're taxed
more heavily. Our graduated income tax is based upon not just ability to pay, but also a sense of fairness regarding those with less.
Our problem is that no single sense of morals holds sway, so taxation could falsely appear to be devoid of morals.

Of course. But taxes were never meant to be "fair". At their best they are tolerable and not too disruptive. That is the very nature of the beast, isn't it?

"Fairness" is the thing most often argued about regarding taxation. Voters demand it. Politicians exploit this. The result seldom
ever matches any one person's idea of "fair". The best we can achieve is a rough consensus where dissatisfaction is equally distributed.

For everyone? Isn't there a minimum wealth cap of some kind?

There were value thresholds for different levels of taxation.

Surely. What is not reasonable is to give that urge more attention than the fairly obvious social demands of the current world.
By the same token, it is reasonable to want to shoot strangers every now and then. But it is very unreasonable to actually do the deed.

Too cryptic for me.

Yes. But how much of an actual danger are they? There are always people with the most exotic beliefs. Most so-called "socialists" are to be encouraged and have far less radical beliefs.
So it would be, if the consequences of such a hands-off approach to life weren't so grim. Social reality gives everyone some rather clear duties.

I only point out that different people have different values. No one owns the inerrant truth.

 

[Magic Man]

But not every case of inheritance results in taxation either.

Sure, but not every case of someone dying results in taxation either. Only when there is an inheritance of a certain size. So, inheritance is much more accurate than death here.

When the tax does get levied, it is always triggered by a single event, ie, someone dies. (Note that neither death, inheritance nor having an estate will by itself be sufficient condition to cause the tax.) You're beginning to convince me that "death tax" is the most accurate name, & that anything else is deceptive. But I won't begrudge you for your government-friendly name of "estate tax". We all know what you mean.

Just remember it's not me that's convincing you it's more accurate, it's your bias.

I have no standard. I merely point out that the Sunstone standard fails utterly.

I've shown that your name is just as inaccurate. But it makes sense that since you favor more taxes, you'd want a comforting name.
I prefer a fun & pithy name.

It's funny that you believe that. No, my name is not inaccurate. It's an estate or inheritance tax because that's what's being taxed. Just like income tax is accurate because that's what's being taxed, even though you could call it "tax for being employed".

I know, I know, I'm not going to break you of your incorrect belief, since you're so old, but I'll keep trying.

I remind you that this is not factual, but rather merely your opinion.

And I'll remind you that you're wrong. "Death tax" is inaccurate. That's a fact.

I neither support nor oppose the death tax. They're gonna take taxes from us somehow...why not include that way?

In other words "I neither support nor oppose the estate tax. They're gonna take taxes from us somehow, so I support the estate tax". Yeah, way to not contradict yourself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, far be it from me to try to get through that thick conservative skull.

Tsk, tsk, tsk....lashing out is the last refuge of the defeated.
(And I'm not even out to "win" anything. I just offer my opinions.)

And I'll remind you that you're wrong. "Death tax" is inaccurate. That's a fact.

...a faith-based fact.
You have much trouble discerning between your values, wishes, beliefs & truth.
They aren't equivalent. But I'm here to help.

In other words "I neither support nor oppose the estate tax. They're gonna take taxes from us somehow, so I support the estate tax". Yeah, way to not contradict yourself.

You imagine a contradiction. It makes perfect sense to recognize the premise that we will be taxed.
The real issue is what tax policy will work best. The death tax could be a reasonable part of the mix.
Are you upset that I have no fundamental objection to it?