![]() |
![]() |
#1 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: midwest
|
estate tax repeal
The House of Representatives has passed a bill which would immediately repeal federal estate tax. I doubt that the Senate will follow suit, but it ticks me off that the it is getting greater acceptance and at some point in the future probably will happen.
Only the VERY rich will benefit, and it will be at the expense of the all of the rest of us. Currently, the tax only applies to taxable estates greater than $1.5 million, and this goes to $2 million next year. With estate planning, married couples can double up, so that the tax only hits them to the extent their marital property is greater than $3mil and $4mil, respectively. The dirty secret about estate tax repeal is that it would eliminate stepped up basis and reinstate carryover basis. In other words, heirs receiving appreciated assets will have to pay capital gain tax, when currently there would be none. Let's say that a decedent's heirs inherited a farm which cost the decedent $100k, and they sold it for $1mil. If this was the only asset of the decedent, there currently wouldn't be any estate tax or capital gain tax. Following estate tax repeal, the heirs would be stuck with a $900k capital gain to pay tax on. Meanwhile, the mega rich would trade down from a 50% marginal estate tax rate to a 20% maximum capital gain rate. Does anyone have a different take on the issue, and if so, what is the reasoning for it? |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 (permalink) |
Browncoat
Location: California
|
I'm completely in favor of eliminating the estate tax.
Income is taxed. The income that you've already paid taxes for is used to purchase property, which is also taxed. When you die, the property is left to your heir who not only pays an estate tax, but then must also pay property tax for as long as he or she owns the property. How many times should the government be allowed to tax the same piece of income? This is also a huge slap in the face of property rights. If a piece of property was legitimately purchased with legitimately earned money, why should the government be entitled to portion of its value?
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
The federal government has spending obligations that now exceed revenue by $500 billion annually, and there is no plan to cut spending or raise revnue, even though Republicans raised spending as they cut taxes. The present administration came into office with a federal budget that enjoyed a small surplus. The government borrows the $500 billion annual shortfall, and the federal debt in the last four years has risen from $5.5 trillion to $7.5 trillion, an increase of $2 trillion that you and your children are responsible to pay with interest. The government has eliminated the 30 year bond, and now finances the debt with instruments of a maximium ten years duration, with much of the debt exposed to the risk of rising interest rates, aggravated by the increased federal debt, and a runaway trade deficit that will climb to $700 billion annually this year. Borrowing costs for the government rise as both the federal and trade deficits must be financed by foreign investors who seek higher interest rates and low risk on their bond investments. The president says that the U.S. is at war, and increased military, domestic security, and intelligence costs help make it inconcievable that federal spending will be cut. Only the welathiest American families are subject to inheritance taxes and they have been paying them since 1916. Why are you so concerned about relieving these folks of these taxes? If they do not pay inheritance taxes at the current rate, you and the rest of us will owe a greater collective federal debt, at higher interest rates. Are you aware of the ways that the wealthy already minimize their inheritance tax exposure? There is a tax planning industry that wealthy people consult to help minimize the tax, They set up trust funds, bequeath charitable exempt contributions, scholarships, new hospital wings, museums, etc., named after them. My personal experience in owning and managing a family business was purchasing a "second to die" insurance policy on the life of the surviving parent who owned the real estate that our business operated from. The cost of the policy was lower than if it had to payout upon the death of one person past 60 years of age. Since the inheritance tax on the real estate value would only be due after the death of the second parent, since spouses are exempt from paying the tax on each other's estate value. Hence, the description, "second to die policy". The accountant for our business instructed my wife and I, as the business owners, to have our business issue a salary bonus to us that would pay the monthly policy premiums, an expense that was deductible to the business, including an addtion in the bonus amount to cover our increased income taxes on the salary addition from the bonus. My point in sharing this is that your concern is misplaced. Your government has been taken over by tax cutters who seem more concerned with upsetting the past, balanced tax structure to further enrich their wealthy campaign contributors. This weakens the purchasing power of our currency and guarantees a rising debt obligation for your chidren. Many of the wealthy do not want the tax repealed. Do your senators and congresspersons represent you, or only their wealthiest constituents. Examine their vote on the recent bankruptcy bill. Chances are, that if your representative is in favor of eliminating inheritance taxes, but has done nothing to reduce the rising budget and trade deficits, he also voted for the "bankruptcy reform" bill that was recently passed with no protection for the 50 percent of bankruptcy filers who experience a sudden illness that destroys their ability to earn income or to pay sudden medical expenses. Chances are, you also live in a state with an above average bankruptcy per household ratio. Stop listening to the rhetoric of representatives who do not vote for what is best for your family. If you are wealthy enough now to be concerned, I've given you tips on avoiding the tax. If you are not, why are you concerned? The accumulating federal debt and deteriorating purchasing power of your dollars is guaranteed, even with the help of inheritance tax revenue. You becoming wealthy enough to personally benefit from repeal is a dream or an ambition. Do not let politicians maniplulate you into voting against your own best interests, anymore. Quote:
Last edited by host; 07-08-2005 at 01:29 AM.. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#5 (permalink) | |
Cunning Runt
Location: Taking a mulligan
|
Quote:
Do I understand you correctly that if the "estate tax is repealed," the above farm owners will wind up paying texes that they would not have incurred under current law? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 (permalink) |
Gentlemen Farmer
Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey
|
Repeal the DEATH TAX...
No taxation without respiration!!!! The whole notion of an estate tax, as it must be reframed by the thieves who inacted it, is so absurdly disgusting that I really have trouble grasping how anyone, regardless of the rhetoric, talking points, class envy, and declarations that only the rich will benefit, can support this. Well, I guess I can, since essentially IT IS all about class envy and redistribution of success to the least productive. And this in a nut shell is what the entire repertoire of the left consists of. Talk of oppression, unfair advantage, do nothing silver spooners is nothing more then subterfuge and misdirection, and essentially enslaving the base to the power hungry, know-it-all, holier then thou, elite's of the politically privledged class. Shameful, -bear
__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission. |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 (permalink) | ||||
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
Your comments above the line you posted to me indicate that you aren't aware of the current facts and legislation relating to estate tax law. The claim that small, family operated farms are being taxed off their plots by estate taxes is an emotional appeal from corporate interests that I am unable to find any evidence of. If people were particularly worried about the plight of the family farmer, they would direct their attention to the tactics of agribusiness and the recent changes in bankruptcy law--but they don't and I question the basis of their concern. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#9 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Options to Reform the Estate Tax
Quote:
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
as recently as five fiscal years ago, a federal revenue and spending situation that was in balance, with what we have today. What you rail against is a policy of rolling back taxes that the wealthiest Americans, compared to the pre-Reagan "reforms", were already rolled back from a bracket as high as 90 percent on some of their income, to no more than 40 percent before the present, shortsighted plan to intentioanlly bankrupt the federal government with the goal of making it impossible for it to meet it's "social contract" with American workers, in place since the post disaster of the 1930's depression. Read Grover Norquist's comments on this subject: Quote:
None of the questions that I asked in my last post have been answered in subsequent that simply take one side of the argument, ignoring the facts that no attempt has been made to decrease non-military federal spending, and no plan is proposed to deal with the rising debt or the permanent situation of large deficits and the increasing portion of federal revenue that will be required just to service the interest costs of the increased borrowing. The cost of oil has barely risen versus gold, which sold at $257 per oz. in the summer of 2001, while oil was priced at $30 per bbl. Gold is $425 and oil is $60 today, arguably because the dollar has been undermined by $2 trillion in new federal debt accumulated in the last four years, along with an increase in trade related debt of another $2 trillion. Your advocacy for further tax relief for the top one percent is curiously misplaced. Why such concern for them. Many of the wealthiest Americans are not interested in what you are advocating. If you entertain ambitions of somehow joining their ranks, why not concern yourself with the fiscal mess that you and your heirs are already partly responsible to pay for, instead of advocating for further tax cuts that will diminish tax revenue even further? I outlined in my last post how easy it is for heirs to institute tax deductible measures through life insurance protection to pay inheritance taxes on inherited business related property. Repeating your protests to the current tax policy without offering solutions to the current federal fiscal and monetary crisis is irresponsible, and coincidentally oft repeated by folks who support Bush's war on terror, but offer neither their sons or their money in pursuit of the "cause of freedom". |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#11 (permalink) | |
Gentlemen Farmer
Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey
|
Quote:
The Governor's failed [understandably so, in this culture of entitlement, hand-outs, success demonization, and liberal (and lately 'conservative' sloughing at the governement trough] goals not withstanding. A federal revenue and spending situation that was in balance? Not that is quite amusing. Thank you for that. Spending that is 'balanced' against demonstrably flawed predicted revenue streams is nothing of the sort, I'm afraid. -bear
__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 (permalink) | |
Gentlemen Farmer
Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey
|
Quote:
We don't need the money to begin with. Here's an insight....Stop spending money on failures. -bear
__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
The hidden "tax" on all of us now is the newly created debt caused by increased spending and tax cut exacerbated reduction in the revenue stream. Current fiscal policy has resulted in diminshed spending power of the dollar and an increased portion of the federal budget that is obligated to pay the interst on $2 trillion in new debt in just four years. You protest against a tax that only the wealthiest havr been paying since 1916, and they still managed, in spite of the tax, to double their share of total national wealth since 1970. You make no allowance, in your singleminded advocacy for further tax relief for the richest few, on the effect of reduction to the status quo, or about the merits of spending programs that you do not focus on, or find less repugnant than the ones that you have been indoctinated against by rhetoric of leaders you admire, as in the tired "cadillac driving, welfare queen". You offer no consideration of the influence of the wealthy anf their lobbyists, the clout of their corporate control, their political contributions, their tax lawyers, accountants, and the advertising that they can afford to puch their agenda. They are not impacted by pension fund failures, and their consolidation of wealth in America has increased from 17 percent in 1970 to 34 percent now, a consolidation that took place largely in spite of pre-Bush era tax "reform". You are short on specifics and on fairness. Just as there are no dead bodies of people refused care due to a lack of medical insurance, littering the entrances to our hospitals, it must be that all seriously ill people are treated, despite their means or insurance coverage. All will be fed. clothed, and housed, despite your campaign for drastic cuts. You'll succeed only in making the poor beg for what they receive in a more dignified manner currently, and you may even increase costs as you increase anxiety and uncertainty among the needy. We do not fund enough mediacl clinics for the uninsured now, so a $40 treatment for symptoms of a child's sore throat is morphed into a $450 emergency room visit, the provider of last resort, paid for by the taxpayer. Your "there" ain't "there", bear, unless you intend to preside over an America where a minority steps over the dying, dead, and starving in the streets, because we achived the tax "fairness" and spending cuts that complete the consolidation of national wealth to the already welathiest few, as you seem to champion. Last edited by host; 07-08-2005 at 01:42 PM.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#14 (permalink) |
Gentlemen Farmer
Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey
|
Aside from your flawed assertion of a 'fiscal crisis' now or that a balance ever existed in the past, you make some interesting points.
I tend to agree that the wealthy get wealthier, however, the poor also get wealthier as a result. About the money needed or used to secure additional wealth, I also agree. I do not however believe this to be a problem. I agree that problems exists about influence and the money needed to secure it, but think this is a problem not of the wealthy or successfuls making, but instead a shortfall of our political system in general. One I do not know a better solution for. I do know, and history shows us abundantly, that wealth redistribution and collectivism, does not work, and in fact exacerbates the problem of 'poverty' [which in itself is relative]. I do not believe that we have a poverty problem in the US, that needs to be solved. Finally, while understandable the 'ideal' that the wealthy have no problem thriving without their forfeitures of accumlated and already taxed assets upon death, it is, in my opinion, obscene, to use this reality as a justification for the tax. In other words, it doesn't matter what it does or doesn't solve....it's just the notion that this was proposed and enacted that I find shameful. Again and as usual...I am but JAFO, -bear
__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission. |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 (permalink) | ||||||||||
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#16 (permalink) |
Adequate
Location: In my angry-dome.
|
Farms, please. That's a narrow, romantic load from both sides of the fence and only serves to cluster people in feeble arguments over unimportant details. Anachronistic, our heritage, conglomerates, subsidies, ad nauseum.
The truth is any individual's business with a paper value over the threshhold is subject to the knife. Doesn't matter if it's sustainable as a profitable business after being gutted. Doesn't matter if operations are dependent on family (discount) labor which can't be supported after losing 60% of its potential. Only the paper value matters. Wake up. Because spending is out of control for whatever reason doesn't make it right. Because special interests want funding doesn't mean it's right to decimate these businesses. Taxes out of line are out of line. If you're saying it's okay to sacrifice the few who created paper wealth but weren't savvy enough to play the system, then say so and realize you're just as guilty as the other players. Also realize you aren't nailing the people you wish you were. It's oft-repeated throughout history. Status quo has little to do with justice, but it does pave a smooth road to sticking the other guy.
__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195 |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
What individual right do you have to your parents' property and wealth?
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#18 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: midwest
|
Quote:
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2790/1/337 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#19 (permalink) | |
Somnabulist
Location: corner of No and Where
|
Whatever you think of the estate tax, please don't tell me that family farms are at risk:
Quote:
Here's the report.
__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'" |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#20 (permalink) | ||
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek Last edited by Telluride; 07-10-2005 at 01:41 AM.. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#21 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
By arguing for inheritance rights, you are supporting a system that people receive possessions as a result of what their parents earned, rather than what they individually earned themselves. I'm not the first person to argue that individual rights depend on everyone starting out equally from birth...and it seems like common sense to me that wealth gained by birthright has little to do with the individual's achievements. It doesn't matter if there is a will or not. You asked what if you believed that individual rights were in your best interest...only by making sure that everyone starts out in the economic race with $0 dollars in his or her pockets does the system secure that one's success will be based on one's own endeavors and achievements rather than those of a wealthy benefactor.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#22 (permalink) | ||||
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Quote:
Two points I'd like to make: 1) I've yet to hear of an idea to ensure an equal start in life that didn't involve a violation individual rights; usually in the form of property confiscation. You don't guarantee individual rights by violating them. 2) Ignoring the issue of individual rights for a moment...There is no way to ensure that everyone starts out on equal footing. Some people are smarter or more attractive than others. Some people had better parents who did more to encourage the values of hard work and the importance of an education. There are factors that can't be controlled. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek Last edited by Telluride; 07-10-2005 at 03:16 AM.. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#23 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
You might benefit from dispensing with the caricatures of liberals you are currently employing--they won't serve you very well in this discussion. What I have to say aligns very cleanly with classical theories on the importance of individualism. I don't know what you are basing your ideas on, but mine are well supported by classical philosophy, classical liberal ideology, and a long history of law and society scholars recognizing that individual rights are a means to guarantee space for personal achievement and encourage citizens to adhere to the social contract--not an end in and of themselves. As I write, you'll start to see how threads of these notions have been incorporated into traditional conservative thought. Whether conservatives can actually adhere to them in practice is a very problematic issue, especially since maintaining wealth and power is core to one sector of the current conservative political party, yet inconsistent with our cultural beliefs in rugged individualism and the importance of freedom to participate in a fair system...
To reiterate, I don't see personal rights as an end in and of themselves; rather, as a means to ensure equality and one's ability to come to the market and engage in the social contract with full knowledge that everyone is subject, and adhering, to the same rules. To guarantee full participation, I would argue that one needs to be secure in the knowledge that one's success depends on one's actions, not the actions of others. The things you listed: intelligence, looks, and values, are personal traits. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that you can ignore individual rights. The theories I read that would speak to this issue argue that equality requires a level social playing field. Then individual traits are played out on that field and the best person wins... Usually, the conservative's response is that we ought not to guarantee equality of outcome; this is the first time I've heard someone say that we ought not to even establish equality at birth... It's going to be difficult to describe a coherent course of action according to current conservative party ideals mainly because the platform itself contains logical inconsistencies and attempts to bind divergent classes under one belief system--necessary because the economiclly and politically powerful are few in number but our system secures its legitimacy via the voting public. These inconsistencies and irreconcilable differences between the interests of those divergent classes comes to light in various facets: most recently in the immenent domain case...and it's starting to play out in this discussion...that one's ability to do what one wants, to express one's freedom, can somehow be truncated from one's wealth and power... I don't see how your negation of everything I wrote explains your position to me very well. I would find this conversation more stimulating if you explained why you believed the way you do, how you came to your conclusions, rather than merely refuting what I wrote. So far, I see your comments as running afoul of both classical liberal and conservative ideology in regards to the individual's place in society and the importance of individual achievement.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 07-10-2005 at 04:39 AM.. |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
A much more cogent question would be, "What right does the government have to confiscate your life's work upon your death, thereby preventing you from passing it on to your children and grandchildren?" |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#25 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: midwest
|
Smooth, your posts on this have been excellent, although admittedly you have been preaching to the choir. I, too, would like for Galt to provide sound reasons for his position.
Given the disparity existing between the very rich and all of the rest of us, the reality is that the very rich are going to shoulder a higher tax burden. This may be seen as "unfair" to the rich, but there simply won't be enough money to fund government otherwise. My take on this is that we should look at taxation options which are efficient, in the sense of encouraging people to work to support themselves and acquire personal wealth, so that the government (i.e, we the people) don't have to bear that cost. I wrote to my U.S. Senators, Bayh and Lugar, both of whom supported estate tax repeal, to ask them to oppose it this time around. Here's what I wrote to each of them: "Dear Senator Bayh: I am writing to request that you oppose estate tax repeal, and if politically viable, to suggest an increase in it to affect the wealthiest Americans. What the House of Representatives did still shocks me, particularly when a reasonable compromise was offerred as an alternative. My hope is that the error won't be repeated in the U.S. Senate. I'm a conservative attorney who does estate planning, among other things, and in that capacity, I see some good reasons for imposing tax on the estates of the very wealthy (pick a number...10 mil or whatever). First, the person who made all that money is dead...there's no deterrent to a corpse to take money back in taxes if he made too much. Second, the repeal would reinstate carryover basis...problematic for practitioners, and a burden on those who otherwise wouldn't be paying anything (eg, estate consisting only of 1 mil in farm ground having a basis of 100k results in 900k capital gain to heirs upon sale, which would be avoided entirely by current stepped up basis). Third, the bottom will drop out of charitable giving (currently, it's easy to tell a client in the maximum bracket that a charitable gift will have no net cost to the heirs). Finally, there is the inefficient "rich kid" syndrome...lots of times second and third generation heirs live on and spend down their inheritance, when maybe they otherwise would be motivated to do something. Neither does it make sense politically to repeal the estate tax. As you know, the exemption amount already is $1,500,000.00, and this will increase to $2,000,000.00 next year, if the law remains unchanged. Only a handful of people in my county have a sufficient level of wealth to need estate tax planning at that level, and most of them are able to minimize, if not eliminate, the potential tax on their estates. In light of this, it's hard to view estate tax repeal as anything other than a break for the very wealthy at the expense of the little guy, who then would potentially incur capital gain tax on an inheritance. Estate tax has been referred to as a form of socialism, but that can be said of all "progressive" taxes imposing a greater burden upon the wealthy, eg, graduated income tax rates. Some redistribution of wealth is necessary, and given the extreme gap between the few of great wealth and the many in the middle class or below, generating enough taxes to fund our government must be progressive. The object should be to opt for a system of taxation which is efficient and provides incentives to workers. I'd rather have lower income taxes during my lifetime and incur a substantial tax on my estate (eg, graduated to 70% or more) above a reasonable amount. Does it make sense to be able leave your family a generous inheritance on a tax free basis (eg 10 mil), knowing your estate will take a huge tax hit above that, but enjoy less tax during lifetime in the bargain? Absolutely, in my opinion. I appreciate your allowing me to share with you my thoughts on the estate tax issue. Please consider them, for what they may be worth, when you are called upon to take a stand for Hoosiers on the question of repeal." Here's what Bayh wrote back: > Thank you for contacting me about the estate tax. I > appreciate your thoughts on this important matter. > > I believe the estate tax can discourage investment and hard > work. It can also have a harmful effect on family-owned > businesses and farms. Hoosier families should be able to pass > along their farms or small businesses to the next generation, rather > than being forced to sell them to pay the estate tax. It was for these > reasons that when the permanency of the estate tax repeal came up > for a vote in the Senate in June of 2002, I was one of nine > Democrats to vote in favor of full and permanent repeal. At that > time, there was a projected surplus of $1.6 trillion from 2003 > through 2012, making the elimination of this tax compatible with > balanced budgets and preserving Social Security and Medicare. > > As you know, the fiscal condition of this country has > deteriorated sharply since that point. The most recent > Congressional Budget Office estimates project a federal deficit of > $368 billion during Fiscal Year 2005. The return of structural > deficits on the eve of the Baby Boom retirement is a deeply > troubling development that requires immediate attention on both > sides of the aisle. While I continue to support the goal of > permanently repealing the estate tax, I will evaluate the > accomplishment of this goal in light of the current fiscal condition > of this country. > > Thank you for contacting me. I hope the information I have > provided is helpful. My website, http://bayh.senate.gov, can > provide additional details about legislation and state projects that > may be of interest to you. I value your input and hope you will > continue to keep me informed of the issues important to you. > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > Evan Bayh > United States Senator Not to let his statement about the potential harm to Hoosier farmers and small businessmen go unchallenged, I wrote again: "Senator Bayh: Thank you for your reply. I know of your position on the estate tax repeal. Your reasons for supporting it are valid, and need to weighed against the grounds suggesting a potential net benefit in retaining it in some form. I suggested a $10mil unified credit exemption amount. In my experience, this would be sufficient to exempt Hoosier farmers and small business owners, so that their estates could pass intact to their heirs. While anything over $10 mil isn't "small," in my opinion at least, additional protection could be afforded to Hoosier farmers and businessmen in the form the the special use valuation, family owned business exemption, and installment payment of tax. As for discouraging investment and hard work, studies demonstrate that productivity and time spent working generally decline, as individuals attain sufficient wealth to amply provide for themselves and their families. Total repeal of estate tax, with the reinstatement of carryover basis, clearly favors the very rich (and therefore the very powerful) over the other 99% plus Hoosiers. The few holding extreme wealth get to trade down to at most capital gain rates upon the disposition of property, while all other Hoosiers end up exposed to taxable gains on inherited property which otherwise would pass tax free to them, even under the relatively low current $1.5mil exemption amount. I agree with you that in a time of huge deficit spending, cutting taxes would be imprudent, and shouldn't be considered until our government can be operated at a true surplus (i.e., surplus funds without borrowing from social security tax revenue). Should that time come, however, I would ask that you carefully weigh the adverse impact which estate tax repeal would have upon the vast majority of Hoosiers. Thank you again for your consideration of my thoughts on this matter." Give Bayh credit for responding again, this time with the generic "thanks for your input, I'll carefully consider it" message. Estate tax impacts only a very few, but they have LOTS of money, and the political power that goes with it. In a perfect world, I would hope to see the exemption go up to somewhere between 5mil and 10mil, indexed for inflation, with an increase in the graduated rate to a higher maximum, e.g., 70%. In the world we live in, it will be a victory to simply prevent repeal. |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 (permalink) |
Banned
|
The seeds for revolution:
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2005/...ational/class/ |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
tacqueville was right about estate taxes. in democracy in america, he pointed to them as the single most important mechanism in the america of the 1830s that worked to prevent the formation of an economic aristocracy.
the right seems to prefer the idea of an economic artistocracy and presumably each conservative likes to think him or herself as an aristrocract, to pretend that the class interests of that aristocracy line up with theirs. it is the political version of a society for creative anachronism event in which everyone gets to pretend to be a baron. tocqueville was fascinated with the american democratic experiment, which he argued you could still see operating in the 1830s. it was of course threatened from a number of sides: by urban capitalism, by religious belief and the inability of americans to separate religion and politics, etc--but it was still operational when he wrote--for him, any of these threats could swamp that experiment from the inside--from the outside, the experiment would be definitively ended by the formation of an economic aristocracy. and that is what the right is advocating across the flimsy veil of their opposition to inheritance tax. of course tocqueville's america is long dead. in a sense this fight over inheritance tax is simply a symbolic nail in its coffin. the political implications of abolishing the estate tax never seems to cross the mind of any of the conservatives who argue for it--all you get is a version of their general dislike of taxes, nested within the usual rightwing incoherence about the social and political functions of taxation/redistribution of wealth. the right seems to prefer a kind of neofeudal set up instead of even the last vestiges of democracy...wealth passes across generations, and it therefore entirely private--so the concentration of wealth becomes moot as a political issue--that is what the political implications of this would look like to me. i dont know what the petit bourgeois right is thinking carrying water for the hyper-wealthy on this question. except insofar as such portage is just one of the things that serfs do for their masters.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-10-2005 at 10:24 AM.. |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 (permalink) | |||||||||||||
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As I said before, the only way you can establish economic equality at birth is by massive violation of individual rights (property rights). That is unacceptable. And, for the record, I'm not sure that it's accurate to label me a conservative. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
|||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#29 (permalink) | |||
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek Last edited by Telluride; 07-10-2005 at 03:13 PM.. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#30 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: midwest
|
Quote:
You stated that "you can guarantee absolute economic equality or you can guarantee individual rights in economic matters." This is simply untrue. When indivduals consent to be members of a society, subject to government authority, there must be a "taking" to pay the freight, and it will either be in the form of taxes which are progressive or regressive in nature. Whether or not it's seen to be "equal" depends on whose ox is getting gored. How do you distiguish estate tax from income tax, where the government is "confiscating" a third or your income? You evidently don't get that some compromise of one's individual rights is the price paid for living as a member of a society of individuals. As for your reason for estate tax repeal being based upons an individual's property rights, you ignore the fact that all taxes amount to "confiscation" of one's individual property. At the risk of putting words in Smooth's mouth, we'd like to know why you prefer other forms of taxation over estate tax, which in essence you have done, because the money to fund government activities has to come from taxes assessed on the individuals comprising the governed society. Finally, my opinion on the role of government is irrelevant, it being a given that there are certain essential functions of government. What good would it do for me to tell you about my views on government funding of more controversial programs, when things like defense spending are mandatory? (my apologies, if you are an anarchist, but then you wouldn't be on a computer, paying tax as part of your user fees, and subject to FCC jurisdiction...you instead would be communicating with me via carrier pigeon). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#31 (permalink) | |||||||
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Quote:
Quote:
By the way; the only equal tax would be flat tax, where the same percentage of everyone's income is taken in taxes. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() Thankfully I'm not an anarchist (or an antichrist). These debates would take forever if we had to communicate with carrier pigeons. Plus it would be difficult for other TFP members to participate. ![]()
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#32 (permalink) |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
Personally, anything I inherit I didn't work for so why should I be entitled to recieve it tax free.
My father worked hard to get what he got and I respect him for it. If anything, I would rather have a closer relationship to my father than the idea that I may inherit a lot upon his death. That won't make up for the yers we have fought and not been close. I find it funny how people can argue that SS something people paid into, were promised, worked hard for and deserve is a government entitlement and they shouldn't get it, yet inheritence, something by virtue of what it is, has not been worked for by the individual (in 95% of the cases) and those people are entitled to every penny tax free. The GOP sells the middle class a bill of dreams that only the very rich will ever capitalize on. Like I said before, the government can have every freaking penny of my inheritence. What I work for and make on my own is more important to me. What I'll get won't bring me happiness. Most of the kids I grew up with will have their inheritences spent before they get them on drugs, alcohol, cheap women, cars and things that are social statements. I can't see very many investing it into small companies to help employment and increase the tax base.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: midwest
|
It looks as if you and I will have to agree to disagree, Gault.
I went back to your original post, and found no cogent argument to support your position. Over 99% of estates don't result in tax liability to begin with, and many of those that do incur the tax because of UNTAXED property appreciation, as has been pointed out. Also, only certain types of property are taxed merely by virtue of one's ownership of it (generally, real estate; occasionally, intangibles). If you make the right choices about the kinds of property you own, only income on it or any gain on its sale is subject to tax. As for the double tax argument, we're already stuck with that...in fact, most taxpayers pay more in regressive taxes with after-tax dollars than they pay on their income (think sales taxes and excise taxes, for example). I think individuals pay too much tax. I believe that politicians of all stripes are poor stewards of our tax revenue, both in terms of the programs funded and with regard to inefficient spending. None of that matters. A budget will be approved, and it will need to be funded. All kinds of taxes are levied, and if the estate tax on those who are very rich is eliminated, the lost tax revenue will need to be made up somewhere else. Under these circumstances, I'm happy to see the estate tax remain in effect. Multi-millionaires may take issue with me (you must be one of them, Gault), but all us little folk don't want to have to take up the tax slack so that the rich can get richer. Last edited by loganmule; 07-10-2005 at 07:25 PM.. |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Why does the government have the right to take stuff that they didn't earn? The government is supposed to work for the people. Your structure has all the people working for the benefit of the government. That's often referred to as Fascism or Communism, depending on the reasons given for the theft. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#35 (permalink) | |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
Quote:
If government does not tax or does not tax enough...... how do we pay for government to work for the people? You may not see a need for Education or healthcare or police or whatever, but the majority may and so taxes become a necessity.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#36 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#37 (permalink) |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
My view, I didn't work for it. Do they have a right to the money my father leaves me? Yes. Do they have a right to the land, businesses, stocks and bonds? Depends, are they giving fair assessments of the land and businesses? If so, then yes they have every right to a portion of them.
My father started from dirt poor to become a very wealthy man. He did so with government help, student loans, apprenticeships, a good education, small business loans, HUD loan for our first house, student loans and grants for my sister and I so he didn't have to foot the bill all himself, and unemployment when he was laid off, when he first started and so on. Should those oppurtunities be repaid? ABSOLUTELY. How are they repaid? By giving back to the government that allowed and helped him to achieve all he had. He may have had the drive without the government's help but he would never have achieved what he did without that help. Nor would Bill Gates, nor4 would Steve Jobs.... and so on. To say I have a right to everything and the government should take nothing is greedy and fucked up, becauise the government HELPED HIM and after he is gone, it's his duty to repay the government to help others...... He's very conservative but even he understands this fundamental principle. We can never be so greedy as not to repay and pass down the oppurtunities we were given, or we will decay and the society that we love today will be gone tomorrow.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
One of the VERY basic tenets of our system of government is that the government is there to serve the people, NOT that the people are there to serve the government. And with what you were talking about with the "level playing field" of everybody starting out with no assets from their parents, that's EXACTLY what you are advocating....that the wealth of an individual, built up over the lifetime of the individual through the individual's efforts, is ultimately the property of hte Government. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#39 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: midwest
|
Moosenoose, you are stirring the pot, and I'm cool with that...free exchange of ideas and all. However, all taxes can be viewed as theft, by your definition...for every dollar I spend, the government "steals" a nickel in sales tax. But it isn't really theft, because all of us who choose to remain here and submit to our government's authority and protection impliedly consent to pay assessed taxes to fund govenment activity.
The issue is whether the estate tax is so patently unfair, when viewed in the context of all other "unfair" taxes, that we should do away with it. I don't think so. You are entitled to your opinion, but let's not misquote others or the tax itself. pan6467 is saying that his father accepts that having acquired wealth with the help of government benefits (and therefore our tax dollars), he's o.k. with giving SOME of that back...but NONE of the first $1.5 mil in 2005 ($2 mil in 2006), and not even half of the excess above that amount, under current law. The goverment may be here to serve us, but it can't do that for free. Under the current estate tax structure, a multimillionaire decedent will leave a multimillion dollar estate for his heirs, and the 99% or more of us who aren't multimillionaires won't pay anything. I invite you to explain how this result is so inequitable, as compared with other taxes imposed upon us, to compel estate tax repeal. |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by moosenose; 07-12-2005 at 10:34 AM.. |
||
![]() |
Tags |
estate, repeal, tax |
|
|