[mesZibeds]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So you don't believe a will is a contract? Since when is a declaration by one party a contract? When I think of contracts, I think of their being two parties, not one.

But this is moot, since the simple point is that society has every reason and right to determine the ways in which the property that once belonged to a dead person should be handled after their deaths.

If you think there is a policy reason for not having an estate tax, argue it based on economic policy, not some assesine assertion of rights for the dead - heck, if they "pay taxes", shouldn't the dead get to vote as well?

[cepAceryTem]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I will have to put arrian in my will, just in case I pass on before he does, and he will have to give the money I would leave him to the government since wealth redistribution is an inherent good.

-Arrian

[durootrium]

Because we tax GIVING money already, that's why (yes, if your friend Bill Gates handed you $500m, that would be heavily taxed). I disagree with that too. If I want to give Snoopy a half a million, I should be able to do that without the state grabbing it.

There's no sound reason why estates should be allowed at all - it doesn't benefit the economy significantly to allow any sort of inheritance. BAM. As I already said the bulk of estates tend to be illiquid assets, which are already earning a considerable amount of money as investments. This is essentially a tax which discourages sound financial planning, and encourages wasteful spending.

Inheritance concentrates wealth (which is bad for the economy), and an estate tax is a highly effective 'progressive' tax. Wealth concentration is essential for the efficient operation of capital. It takes significant money to do most anything of significance these days, and disbursing that money has the effect of lowering investment income, which could otherwise be taxed.

Further, it is a tax that 'hurts' far less significantly, economically speaking, in that an income tax takes away earned money that you need to live on a day to day; Most businesses operate on some means of investments. The death tax just means that these businesses are likely to fold up shop rather then carry on from generation to generation, which puts people who work at these businesses out of a job, for no other reason then the fact that the person who started the business passed on.

a capital gains tax discourages investment (in that it lowers the benefit from investing); True, but a gains tax does not touch the principle.

sales tax not only hurts the poor by making it harder to buy their basic goods, but also discourages spending locally, thus hurting the economy; Sales taxes hurt the rich far more because they have more to spend. The poor would actually benefit the most from a sales tax, because they consume less, and what they take home would not be touched.

Personally, any tax which lets me take home more, and only pay whenever I buy something is much, much better then a tax which takes away stuff before I even get to see it.

while an estate tax just takes money you didn't have before (and generally don't need). It destroys businesses, which puts people out of work.

All taxes are 'unfair', in that they take money you rightfully have and give it to the common good; that argument is nonsensical. I think only taxing consumption is the best way to go.

Estate taxes are less unfair than others, generally speaking, and make a lot of sense. When you die, you should provide for the common good Sorry, I don't see it that way. When I pass on, I should hope to have given all my money away to the people who gave a **** about me when I was here. Why should I give my money to the government?

I'd be happy to (and certainly don't intend to leave much to my children), and so should you Why shouldn't I give all I have to my children and ensure that nothing goes to the government?

The above tax I describe would have to have all sorts of loopholes fixed, of course, including trust loopholes and gift loopholes, but that's up to congress to do. Err, well, yeah... I think it's a stupid tax honestly. Tax consumption, it's the easiest and fairest way to go.

[Bounce]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I disagree with that too. If I want to give Snoopy a half a million, I should be able to do that without the state grabbing it....
...because money that is worked for should be taxed and money which is not worked for should not be taxed?

[Drugmachine]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. - Karl Marx Then you better beware, cause two of the five richest men in the world are flamming Communists! (Given that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are supporters of the estate tax)

[errolespopume]

...because money that is worked for should be taxed and money which is not worked for should not be taxed? I already worked for it.

Why shouldn't I be able to give all of it to snoopy if that's what I choose to do?

[jackie Obrian]

Originally posted by rah
A wife doesn't and shouldn't pay any estate taxes when her husband dies. Law for spouses is different, specially if the couple has been paying taxes as a couple, with there being an assumption that both partners are in a sense owners of the estate.

Children that have spent decades helping their parents keep a family farm or business going should never have to sell it because their parents died.

Why weren't the children made part owners or partners in the enterprise if they have been helping "for decades"? Also, this is extremely simple to fix.

Now that's just one type of example but it's important.
FOR the record, I think when it's a huge estate, there should be taxes. But the next generation should get something if for no other reason that them getting it was part of the motivation for the parents, and I don't think we want to discourage the parents. Anyone who receives an estate large enough to fall under the estate tax is going to get income in the six figures already.

[Kafuuil]

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) plans to promise on Monday that he will balance the federal budget by the end of his first term by curbing wasteful spending and overhauling entitlement programs, including Social Security, his advisers told Politico.

The vow to take on Social Security puts McCain in a political danger zone that thwarted President Bush after he named it the top domestic priority of his second term.

McCain is making the pledge at the beginning of a week when both presidential candidates plan to devote their events to the economy, the top issue in poll after poll as voters struggle to keep their jobs and fill their gas tanks.

“In the long-term, the only way to keep the budget balanced is successful reform of the large spending pressures in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid,” the McCain campaign says in a policy paper to be released Monday.

“The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html

It's pretty simple. In the federal budget, there's this huge half trillion item called "defeat." McCain's gonna cross that out. Straight talk.

[DYjLN8rF]

Originally posted by rah
...
Children that have spent decades helping their parents keep a family farm or business going should never have to sell it because their parents died.

.... The kids have just been given a $1,000,000+ business.

It doesn't break my heart if they have to take out a loan to pay taxes. I have to pay taxes on my salary. Why is my salary subject to tax while their gift is not?

[Swidemaiskikemu]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So you believe poor people spend just as much money as rich people? No, what he and everyone who still has a graps on reality KNOW is that consumption as a PERCENTAGE of income is generally lower for the wealthy than the poor. Therefore, unless heavily skewed, consumption taxes would be impact the poor more (as in, claim a greater percentage of their wealth).

[amelveEnromma]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The kids have just been given a $1,000,000+ business.

It doesn't break my heart if they have to take out a loan to pay taxes. I have to pay taxes on my salary. Why is my salary subject to tax while their gift is not? QFT!

[appletango]

Why does the state have a right to appropriate someone's property (and the will isn't a singular contract GePap, it is a state endorced and legal document)?

Why is it fair that they get to appropriate that money?

Hell, if you are greedy and just want other people's money just say it, there are plenty of other greedy people who will agree with you. This dishonesty about "rights" and "fairness" is being spouted for your own consumption, its not fooling anyone else

[pGJLweEw]

Mostly because without the protections enabled by the state, those individuals would not be able to accumulate such vast sums of either. They would either have to pay millions for private security forces or the masses would take their horded wealth in a bloody revolution. The masses tend not to like living in squalor when someone gets rich off them... these things like equality resonate with folks.

[vicgirl]

Why does the state have a right to appropriate someone's property (and the will isn't a singular contract GePap, it is a state endorced and legal document)? We believe that the burden of funding the government should largely be shouldered by those who can most afford it.

And unless you don't believe in taxation at all, you also believe that the government has the "right to appropriate someone's property." The progressiveness of the tax doesn't change this.

[gorbasevhuynani]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Why does the state have a right to appropriate someone's property Because we don't live in some kind of libertarian bizarro world.

[Reafnartefs]

Originally posted by GePap


Then you better beware, cause two of the five richest men in the world are flamming Communists! (Given that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are supporters of the estate tax) Hence the whole Foundation deal that they gave a significant chunk of their wealth to, just to get around such a tax.

[myspacecoo]

Originally posted by Whoha


Hence the whole Foundation deal that they gave a significant chunk of their wealth to, just to get around such a tax. Unless these foundations are meant for the benefit of their kids and family only, this is not what the estate tax is there to handle.

A wealthy person making their wealth available to a fund meant to promote the common welfare in some way is good, and serves the same general purpose of the estate tax.