120 Days to Go Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History.

[imagep]

Death Taxes, Inheritance Tax.... either way it's the most morally corrupt taxation in America. If I die tomorrow, my children should be allowed to take what I have earned. The Gov't all ready taxed that income, wealth, property.

I would suggest the opposit. I think that the tax for working is the most morally corrupt tax. Why should I have to pay a tax for working? Doesn't the government want me to work? Is it a bad thing that I work? Do we need less people to work?

While on the other hand, the death tax is a tax on income that people recieve but did not earn, so with the understanding that our government has to tax something, I find that the death tax is the least harmful tax as it does not discourage anyone from doing anything other than dying. I really don't have an issue with paying a tax on income that is derived not from my hard work but from luck.

The death tax is to a certain extent a deferred tax on wealth. One that you don't have to pay until you die. I find that much preferable to having to pay taxes when I still need my wealth. Every penny collected in the form of death tax is a penny of other forms of taxes that does not have to be collected.

In my fantasy world I would like to have a government so small that the ONLY tax that was neccesary was the death tax. That way I could keep every penny of income that I worked for and spend or save or invest it as I choose fit. It would be much easier to die a rich man without having to pay taxes during life. That would also reduce generation after generation of worthless heirs - like the Kennedy family. Everyone should have to work and everyone should have the opportunity to keep everything that they work for. I owe nothing to my children other than to provide for them during their childhood, and my parents and grandparents owe me nothing now that I am an adult. I do not feel entitled to anyones wealth other than my own.

Sure, I would like to inherit a few family heirlooms when they pass away, and I would like my child to inherit them when I pass away, but when we are talking "death tax" we arn't suggesting a total seizure of wealth, just a tax on the transfer of wealth that was not earned. If someone was to give me the option of inheriting nothing (because wealth was taxed away during my parents life) or paying a tax on a significant inheritance - I would certainly choose paying a tax on inheritance.

The average age of death is now something like 77, the average age of inheritance is something like 53. By the time I am 53 my child will be an adult and will have already (hopefully) have graduated college and established a career. I would much prefer to be able to spend my income during my life on my children when they are children than for them to have to wait until I pass away (likely when they already have adult children also). Piano lessons at age 10 are much more valuable than piano lessons at age 53. By age 53 most people who are industrious and frugle and deserving of wealth have already aquired wealth. Without income tax they could have kept and invested much more of what they EARNED.

The great great great grandchildren of Bill Gates have no more earned any inheritance from Bill Gates's estate than I have. They are not more entitled to anything than I am. Seems that we complain about the "entitlement mentality" of the lazy and undeservingwelfare class but for some odd reason condone the entitlement mentality of the lazy and undeserving multigenerational rich.


The "evils" of the death tax is a myth perpetuated by the rich and/or people who feel entitled to the wealth of others.

 

[Kali]

Death Taxes, Inheritance Tax.... either way it's the most morally corrupt taxation in America. If I die tomorrow, my children should be allowed to take what I have earned. The Gov't all ready taxed that income, wealth, property.

Agree with this.. I do not feel they should be taxed on that. You paid the taxes and your kids should not be taxed yet again just cause the inherit what you have already paid on.

It is one of the most disgusting rips off ever from our gov

 

[Kali]

What are you talking about? One can easily accumulate $1.5 million in assets without doing it on "the backs of your commnunity." If you can't imagine that, you just aren't trying hard enough in your own life.

Sure.. It is so damn easy for people living paycheck to paycheck to accumulate $1.5 million in assets. If this were the case? We would all be living that dream but it is not that easy! Tell that to someone living up in the hood

 

[imagep]

Agree with this.. I do not feel they should be taxed on that. You paid the taxes and your kids should not be taxed yet again just cause the inherit what you have already paid on.

It is one of the most disgusting rips off ever from our gov

So why not eliminate the first taxation (income tax) and not the second taxation (death tax)? Do you really think it is better to pay a tax on what you work for than to pay a tax on what you recieve without earning?

We have to start looking at the big picture and not making decisions based on kneejerk reactions.

 

[imagep]

Sure.. It is so damn easy for people living paycheck to paycheck to accumulate $1.5 million in assets. If this were the case? We would all be living that dream but it is not that easy! Tell that to someone living up in the hood

Your right, it's not easy, it takes a lifetime of average wages, a certain amount of frugality, and some saving and investing. But a net worth of $1.5 mil is not out of the question for anyone of normal intelegence who is willing to work hard all their life. Thats the way it is SUPPOSED to be.

Also, a net worth of $1.5 million is no where close to being rich.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

let us begin with the first bit if propaganda.
there is no such thing as a "death tax". there has been a tax on inherited wealth for quite a long time. the reason is simple - inherited wealth is wealth YOU did not generate by your own efforts.

Ok....so that explains why I'm taxed on income I didn't work for, so why exactly am I paying income tax? By your logic I shouldn't have to.

You're not just making excuses on why daddy gov't can tax me on money given to me by a dead person, are you?

 

[imagep]

Ok....so that explains why I'm taxed on income I didn't work for, so why exactly am I paying income tax? By your logic I shouldn't have to.

No, not at all. Geo was saying that you didn't work for income recieved from inheritance, there is no income tax on inheritance (actually, this year there is no federal tax on inheritance at all). There is an income tax on income that you work for and you most likely work for any income that you pay income tax on.

The issue is why should we be penalized on money that we make from working, instead of money that we get from luck?

 

[Renae]

So why not eliminate the first taxation (income tax) and not the second taxation (death tax)? Do you really think it is better to pay a tax on what you work for than to pay a tax on what you recieve without earning?

We have to start looking at the big picture and not making decisions based on kneejerk reactions.

Because not enough people die yearly to make this work. Pipe Dreams, great until you reach for them.

Now, how about Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation THAT'S the way to go.

 

[TurtleDude]

I would suggest the opposit. I think that the tax for working is the most morally corrupt tax. Why should I have to pay a tax for working? Doesn't the government want me to work? Is it a bad thing that I work? Do we need less people to work?

While on the other hand, the death tax is a tax on income that people recieve but did not earn, so with the understanding that our government has to tax something, I find that the death tax is the least harmful tax as it does not discourage anyone from doing anything other than dying. I really don't have an issue with paying a tax on income that is derived not from my hard work but from luck.

The death tax is to a certain extent a deferred tax on wealth. One that you don't have to pay until you die. I find that much preferable to having to pay taxes when I still need my wealth. Every penny collected in the form of death tax is a penny of other forms of taxes that does not have to be collected.

In my fantasy world I would like to have a government so small that the ONLY tax that was neccesary was the death tax. That way I could keep every penny of income that I worked for and spend or save or invest it as I choose fit. It would be much easier to die a rich man without having to pay taxes during life. That would also reduce generation after generation of worthless heirs - like the Kennedy family. Everyone should have to work and everyone should have the opportunity to keep everything that they work for. I owe nothing to my children other than to provide for them during their childhood, and my parents and grandparents owe me nothing now that I am an adult. I do not feel entitled to anyones wealth other than my own.

Sure, I would like to inherit a few family heirlooms when they pass away, and I would like my child to inherit them when I pass away, but when we are talking "death tax" we arn't suggesting a total seizure of wealth, just a tax on the transfer of wealth that was not earned. If someone was to give me the option of inheriting nothing (because wealth was taxed away during my parents life) or paying a tax on a significant inheritance - I would certainly choose paying a tax on inheritance.

The average age of death is now something like 77, the average age of inheritance is something like 53. By the time I am 53 my child will be an adult and will have already (hopefully) have graduated college and established a career. I would much prefer to be able to spend my income during my life on my children when they are children than for them to have to wait until I pass away (likely when they already have adult children also). Piano lessons at age 10 are much more valuable than piano lessons at age 53. By age 53 most people who are industrious and frugle and deserving of wealth have already aquired wealth. Without income tax they could have kept and invested much more of what they EARNED.

The great great great grandchildren of Bill Gates have no more earned any inheritance from Bill Gates's estate than I have. They are not more entitled to anything than I am. Seems that we complain about the "entitlement mentality" of the lazy and undeservingwelfare class but for some odd reason condone the entitlement mentality of the lazy and undeserving multigenerational rich.


The "evils" of the death tax is a myth perpetuated by the rich and/or people who feel entitled to the wealth of others.

social engineering is not constitutionally proper basis for tax schemes

the death tax discourages thrift

the death tax appeals to class envy and props up those politicians who push for class warfare

the issue is not that the heirs did not earn the money but rather the choices and wishes of the person who did

the heirs certainly did more to earn it than a greedy government and envious voters who have already received massive amounts of the donor's wealth through the progressive taxes

Thosee who support this tax never address the fact that those who earn wealth have a right to determine its disposition

 

[hazlnut]

Because not enough people die yearly to make this work. Pipe Dreams, great until you reach for them.

Now, how about Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation THAT'S the way to go.

Have you done your reading assignment yet!!

 

[Renae]

Have you done your reading assignment yet!!

?? The hells you on about ??

 

[Renae]

If you knew the Byrd rule you wouldn't be saying this.

You haven't cited a single thing here. I thought you wanted adult debate? What gives?

You have to do better than the equivalent of "Nuh-uh!"

If Republicans love their tax cuts so much, why didn’t they enact them for perpetuity? Because they didn’t have enough votes, thanks to an obscure parliamentary rule known as the Byrd Rule.

The Byrd Rule, first adopted in 1985 and named for the late Robert C. Byrd, allows senators during the reconciliation process to block a piece of legislation if it significantly increases the federal deficit more than 10 years in the future.

Any senator can raise a procedural objection to legislation that does affect the deficit more than a decade out. If the objection is sustained, whatever provision is at fault for raising the deficit 10 years out is eliminated from the legislation, unless a 60-vote majority says otherwise.

Reader Response: Why Are the Bush Tax Cuts Expiring in the First Place? - NYTimes.com

Read it, and weep IT.

 

[The Uncola]

Reader Response: Why Are the Bush Tax Cuts Expiring in the First Place? - NYTimes.com

Read it, and weep IT.

So, basically you are saying, Regressives were for the Fat Cat tax cuts expiring before they were against the Fat Cat tax cuts expiring. Got it.

Too bad, so sad. 'Bout time the greedy few paid a little closer to their fair share.

 

[Renae]

So, basically you are saying, Regressives were for the Fat Cat tax cuts expiring before they were against the Fat Cat tax cuts expiring. Got it.

Too bad, so sad. 'Bout time the greedy few paid a little closer to their fair share.

The greedy few? OH, you're one of those that think success deserves to be punished, cause you're poor and jealous of other's success! Got it.

As for the actual point, the GOP wanted permanent tax cuts, but didn't have the votes. Like I've said all along.

 

[The Uncola]

The greedy few? OH, you're one of those that think success deserves to be punished, cause you're poor and jealous of other's success! Got it.

As for the actual point, the GOP wanted permanent tax cuts, but didn't have the votes. Like I've said all along.

Nonsense, most of the wealthiest 2% of this nation have done jacksquat to "earn" anything, other than be fortunate enough to be born rich. Save it for dupes.

 

[imagep]

Because not enough people die yearly to make this work. Pipe Dreams, great until you reach for them.

Now, how about Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation THAT'S the way to go.

Possibly, it depends on how small we can make our government. But really, have you actually looked up the total net worth of everyone who dies each year? If we set the base tax exempt amount on inheritance quite a bit lower than it is now (say like half a million instead of next years million) and if we taxed everything over that level at quite a bit higher than it is now (maybe a flat 50%), it would bring in quite a bit of revenue.

Also, if we stopped taxing income, peoples net worth would grow very substantially and eventually a much larger percent of us would die fairly wealthy - allowing for much more death tax revenue. It's a matter of phazing out current taxes while we shrink our government spending and slowly increase inheritance tax.

Worse case senerio is that we may be able to eleminate all taxes on working but we may would have to keep some fees for government services and possibly sin taxes (which in a way are fees for government services).

 

[imagep]

social engineering is not constitutionally proper basis for tax schemes

I actually agree. But unfortunately all forms of taxes have social enineering side effects. It's a matter of choosing the lessor of evils.

the death tax discourages thrift

Income tax dicourages work

the death tax appeals to class envy and props up those politicians who push for class warfare

Income tax appeals to the rich class who own our rule our world.

the issue is not that the heirs did not earn the money but rather the choices and wishes of the person who did

The issue is allowing people to keep money that they work for, not to allow people to get money they didnt earn.

the heirs certainly did more to earn it than a greedy government and envious voters who have already received massive amounts of the donor's wealth through the progressive taxes

Heirs do absolutely nothing to earn it. The "envious" people are people who expect something for nothing at the expense of people who are working hard for their money.

Thosee who support this tax never address the fact that those who earn wealth have a right to determine its disposition

There is nothing wrong with someone spending their money as they choose during their lifetime. Thats EXACTLY why I propose eleminating taxes that take hard earned money away from living people who EARN it.

Everytime you say something about "envious people" I hear you shouting "SOME WORTHLESS MIDDLECLASS PERSON IS TRYING TO STEAL THE MILLIONS THAT I AM ENTITLED TO BECAUSE I AM ROYALTY".

 

[Renae]

Nonsense, most of the wealthiest 2% of this nation have done jacksquat to "earn" anything, other than be fortunate enough to be born rich. Save it for dupes.

Why do you care how they got their money? Does the fact their family earned it mean you have some right to call for their wealth to be taken away?

 

[BWG]

Reader Response: Why Are the Bush Tax Cuts Expiring in the First Place? - NYTimes.com

Read it, and weep IT.

Why should he weep? Your own article backs up exactly what he said.

The cons passed the tax cuts through reconciliation (weren't some crying about reconciliation just a few short months ago?). The cons knew it would expire in ten years - though they hoped that their wet dream of a Permanent Majority would materialize and they could make the cuts permanent, but as they say, 'the best laid plans of mice and men...'.

The GOP Congress passed it with the full knowledge that the bill would expire 12/31/2010. No one is 'raising' the tax rates, the tax rates are reverting back to pre 2001 rates, doing just what the bill was designed to do. Also the tax payers in the top two brackets will still be paying less than what they where paying in pre 2001 rates.

Doing nothing is just that, doing nothing. Doing nothing is not 'raising' taxes, the cons bill will expire soon. Whatever the consequences, is because of the bill they sponsored.

Notice what you bolded from the article, though you did stop just short of the mention of the 'Byrd Rule'.

Now, the real reason that they had to put the sunset provision in there is because it would cause too big of a deficit which would trigger the "Byrd Rule" and it kept it in compliance with the PAYGO law.

 

[Renae]

I've said from the get go the GOP wanted to make them permanent, but lacked the votes. IT contends they couldn't and it "triggered the Byrd Rule" which is false.

The BYRD RULE was kicked off by the lack of VOTES, and the GOP had to put a sunset to avoid a filibuster (and get a few dems to vote with them). Which was my position from the GET GO.

I think that about settles this, IT I await your admittance you were in error.

 

[TurtleDude]

The greedy few? OH, you're one of those that think success deserves to be punished, cause you're poor and jealous of other's success! Got it.

As for the actual point, the GOP wanted permanent tax cuts, but didn't have the votes. Like I've said all along.

its disgusting the amount of spite and envy we see from the class warfare types.

There never should have been a tax on income to start with. any sort of income tax is essentially a tax hike on what was the normal situation for this country. BUt you are right, the GOP wanted permanency and the party that gets its power through progressive income tax wouldn't allow that

 

[TurtleDude]

Why do you care how they got their money? Does the fact their family earned it mean you have some right to call for their wealth to be taken away?

most of our socialists believe that all wealth rightfully belongs to the government first. That is what motivates this idiocy that those who are wealthy need to be soaked even more.

 

[TurtleDude]

I actually agree. But unfortunately all forms of taxes have social enineering side effects. It's a matter of choosing the lessor of evils.


Income tax dicourages work



Income tax appeals to the rich class who own our rule our world.



The issue is allowing people to keep money that they work for, not to allow people to get money they didnt earn.



Heirs do absolutely nothing to earn it. The "envious" people are people who expect something for nothing at the expense of people who are working hard for their money.


There is nothing wrong with someone spending their money as they choose during their lifetime. Thats EXACTLY why I propose eleminating taxes that take hard earned money away from living people who EARN it.

Everytime you say something about "envious people" I hear you shouting "SOME WORTHLESS MIDDLECLASS PERSON IS TRYING TO STEAL THE MILLIONS THAT I AM ENTITLED TO BECAUSE I AM ROYALTY".

THis is pure Nonsense

tell me what did the government and voters do to earn the wealth more than the heirs? ANd YOU IGNORE the fact that the person who owns it ought to be able to determine where it goes. The heirs expect nothing-its the donor who makes the decision and you appear to be upset that your ancestors didn't give you enough. This hangup on heirs not earning it is specious given that the government and the politicians didn't either nor did the donor want them to have it.

I agree, there should be no taxes on income or wealth at al

being rich doesn't hurt the middle class. Find a better argument to justify the death confiscation tax than saying because YOU feel someone needs the money more, the heirs must be soaked

 

[Renae]

most of our socialists believe that all wealth rightfully belongs to the government first. That is what motivates this idiocy that those who are wealthy need to be soaked even more.

I'm well aware of that. I support the Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation plan. I believe it's the most fair way to go.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm well aware of that. I support the Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation plan. I believe it's the most fair way to go.

anything that gets rid of the power congress grabbed with an income tax is good with me