• Death Tax
    57 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36820997]There's these things called 'wills' that try to get things from the dead to the person they desire it for after death.[/QUOTE] And guess who enforces those! The government. So why the fuck do you think the government should do something for you, but you don't have to give them anything in return? [QUOTE=Lankist;36820966]You have a police force. You pay a tax in exchange. You have an EMS service. You pay a tax in exchange. You have schools. You pay a tax in exchange. The government ensures you get what is rightfully yours. You pay a tax in exchange. If you want to get into this "private property" shit, then figure out who gets what yourself. Don't come crying to the court when the estate doesn't hand over your due. You don't want to pay a tax, you don't get a service.[/QUOTE] I reiterate: If you think it's all private property, don't come crying to the court when the estate tells you to fuck off. [editline]18th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36820997]I'm curious, do you support people's bodies being harvested for organs after death regardless of their desires? Your body is your property, and if you don't own anything after death I would see this as a similar subject.[/QUOTE] Personally, on a purely practical level, burials are a waste of a valuable resource. I don't really care what happens to my body after I'm dead, because I'll be dead. If some part of me lives on to save someone's life, that's fucking awesome. If you don't like that, I'm not going to try to legislate against you, but I'm definitely judge you like a motherfucker. A lot of people who don't want to be donors are religious nuts who think they're going to go hang out with the sky fairies and whatnot, and to deny lifesaving medicine on those grounds is both unethical and shameful.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36821013]And guess who enforces those! The government. So why the fuck do you think the government should do something for you, but you don't have to give them anything in return?[/quote] And if things are passed down without an issue, why tax it if there is no service provided? [QUOTE=Lankist;36821013]I reiterate: If you think it's all private property, don't come crying to the court when the estate tells you to fuck off.[/QUOTE] I don't plan to. If it's not left to me in the will, I personally wouldn't cry about. I don't think those who do cry about it are in the right, either. They should deal. On a side note, it'd be easier to reply to your posts if you posted your whole thought first instead of posting a reply, then editing afterward. [editline]18th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36821013] Personally, on a purely practical level, burials are a waste of a valuable resource. I don't really care what happens to my body after I'm dead, because I'll be dead. If some part of me lives on to save someone's life, that's fucking awesome. If you don't like that, I'm not going to try to legislate against you, but I'm definitely judge you like a motherfucker. A lot of people who don't want to be donors are religious nuts who think they're going to go hang out with the sky fairies and whatnot, and to deny lifesaving medicine on those grounds is both unethical and shameful.[/QUOTE] The "why" they don't want to do it is irrelevant in the face of the law compared to the fact that it's their right have their bodies remain how they wish after death. Whether it be fear of some kind or religious reasons, it doesn't matter. You can personally judge all you wish but your personal convictions of what ought to be done shouldn't dictate what the right thing to do is. Anyway, I'm heading to bed. I'll come back to this thread to reply if there aren't 50 thousand new posts when I return.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36821043]And if things are passed down without an issue, why tax it if there is no service provided?[/quote] The same reason why your taxes go toward local police even if nobody is trying to murder you at the moment. The preventative effects apply. If you expect to be helped should you be wronged, you should also expect to pay a tax for that. [quote]I don't plan to. If it's not left to me in the will, I personally wouldn't cry about. I don't think those who do cry about it are in the right, either. They should deal. On a side note, it'd be easier to reply to your posts if you posted your whole thought first instead of posting a reply, then editing afterward.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the estate refusing to give you shit that you were entitled to in the will. If you want inheritance to go unregulated, [I]it will go unregulated.[/I] You clearly have not considered the ramifications of that prospect. It means there will be no one to make sure you get what the will says you'll get. If you're wronged, no one will help you. If you want to stop paying taxes toward firehouses, then nobody's going to come on down with a big red truck when your house is burning down. If you want to stop paying inheritance taxes, then nobody's going to help you when you get [I]nothing.[/I] There will be nothing stopping the estate from just saying "nah, we don't like this will. We're keeping it all." Which one sounds better? [editline]18th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36821043]The "why" they don't want to do it is irrelevant in the face of the law compared to the fact that it's their right have their bodies remain how they wish after death. Whether it be fear of some kind or religious reasons, it doesn't matter. You can personally judge all you wish but your personal convictions of what ought to be done shouldn't dictate what the right thing to do is.[/QUOTE] I'm not following this tangent any further. It's irrelevant. You asked a question out of curiosity, I sated your curiosity. That's the end of that line of discussion.
What about the widows? Keep in mind it's not just the successors receiving the money.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;36821147]What about the widows? Keep in mind it's not just the successors receiving the money.[/QUOTE] "If an asset is left to a spouse or a (Federally recognized) charitable organization, the tax usually does not apply."
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;36821147]What about the widows? Keep in mind it's not just the successors receiving the money.[/QUOTE] When two people are married, their estates become one. When one of them dies, the estate still has a proprietor. Nothing is inherited in that instance. The widow's estate is still their estate. It simply no longer has a co-proprietor. This also makes things sketchy if a will says "the house goes to Mr. X" and the widow is like "hold on, this is my fuckin' house. [I]I'm[/I] not dead." The widow almost always wins in that conflict except in weird circumstances.
Ok I learned something new today. Thanks.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;36821244]Ok I learned something new today. Thanks.[/QUOTE] I think that's the point of Mass Debate! This section helped turn me from a Libertarian to a Liberal, after all. I'd rates you heart if I could.
Whether death tax or some other tax should or should not be allowed, we still have this thing called money, and the system, that revolves around jobs, incomes, purchases, affordability, etc, so the only thing left is to set the numbers and percents right so that we set ourselves on an economically growing path. I just couldn't possibly know the numbers, it's far too complicated. And even with large banks and entire nations having some difficulties, we are still running this world with new cities building up so we must be doing something right at least.
I'd equate death tax to grave robbery. Morally wrong, but because it's the government it's ok apparently.
The "double dipping" thing doesn't really make much sense. I can see the logic in it; it's not like you don't have to pay taxes on your paycheck because your boss already paid taxes for it.
im going to spend my entire fortune on the most expensive single cigar i can buy, then im going to smoke it on my deathbed so my money doesnt go to burnt out morons who are on foodstamps because they never went to college and arent in college because they'll lose their foodstamps
[QUOTE=Flyingman356;36926590]The "double dipping" thing doesn't really make much sense. I can see the logic in it; it's not like you don't have to pay taxes on your paycheck because your boss already paid taxes for it.[/QUOTE] I think most people who are against the death tax are also against other forms of double taxation, e.g. separate payroll and income taxes.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4[/media] Milton Friedman explains it pretty well. Try the 1:50 mark. In essence, taxing your wealth while you're dead incentives you to dissipate it while you're alive, instead of forming long term capital that can be worked and improved upon in further generations.
It's an estate tax, and anyone who says death tax is fucked in the head. Of course there should be an estate tax. An estate is a transaction, and like any other form of income it's taxable. If you're a greedy fuck like most people in this thread that gets bent out of shape over a number next to a dollar sign, then get a fucking grip. If your family has enough money to be affected by the tax (i.e. $1 million or more), then what the fuck is the difference between $10 million and $5 million? That's still a shit load more than my parents would ever be able to leave me. You're not moving down the economic hierarchy because the tax applies the same way to everyone. You aren't going to go from a millionaire family to living on food stamps because the government taxed some of your estate. And it should be mentioned that like tax brackets, the tax would only apply on money over $1 million. If you have $5 million, $4 million is taxable and the remaining $1 million is tax free. Boo fucking hoo, sad day for you. [editline]3rd August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kaboose5246;36810809] I personally, agree with Romney believe that the tax should be eliminated. I think the tax is wrong and unfair because it is effectively taxing a persons earnings twice. All their money has already been taxed when they earned it, and should not be taxed again at death. [/QUOTE] See, this is where all of you are wrong. It's not being taxed twice. When you die and give your money to somebody else it's being taxed as income for the recipient. The dead person isn't being taxed.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37073547]It's an estate tax, and anyone who says death tax is fucked in the head. Of course there should be an estate tax. An estate is a transaction, and like any other form of income it's taxable. If you're a greedy fuck like most people in this thread that gets bent out of shape over a number next to a dollar sign, then get a fucking grip. If your family has enough money to be affected by the tax (i.e. $1 million or more), then what the fuck is the difference between $10 million and $5 million? That's still a shit load more than my parents would ever be able to leave me. You're not moving down the economic hierarchy because the tax applies the same way to everyone. You aren't going to go from a millionaire family to living on food stamps because the government taxed some of your estate. And it should be mentioned that like tax brackets, the tax would only apply on money over $1 million. If you have $5 million, $4 million is taxable and the remaining $1 million is tax free. Boo fucking hoo, sad day for you. [editline]3rd August 2012[/editline] See, this is where all of you are wrong. It's not being taxed twice. When you die and give your money to somebody else it's being taxed as income for the recipient. The dead person isn't being taxed.[/QUOTE] but why should you be taxed for receiving a gift of money from a dead family member or friend? gifts of money are considered non-taxable income when the giver is alive, why does it change when the giver dies?
Gift taxes: [url]http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=256009,00.html[/url]
those are taxes for GIVING gifts, not receiving gifts. According to the IRS ([URL="http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108139,00.html#1"]http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108139,00.html#1[/URL]) the donor pays, not the recipient. And since the estate tax is a tax on the recipient not the donor (just like you said), it contradicts the IRS's current stance on gifts.
It doesn't matter who physically pays the tax, the question is who bears it's burden. In case of inheritance tax, it's the dying person the one who pays the government to leave money to their children, regardless if it's them that actually send it the check. The incentive is clear, the more your inheritance is taxed, the more you'll want to dissipate it while you're alive instead of forming long term capital.
Inheritance tax is, to me, bullshit. The guy who died worked for it and wants his heir to have it, so the state should not get a single dime, unless they haven't made a will, then it's all for the state. [sp]YOU LIVE, YOU GET TAXED YOU DIE, YOU GET TAXED THE TAX IS UNESCAPABLE.[/SP]
I think it should be kept.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37074477]but why should you be taxed for receiving a gift of money from a dead family member or friend? gifts of money are considered non-taxable income when the giver is alive, why does it change when the giver dies?[/QUOTE] Because the gifter can't fight the tax when they die. [QUOTE=Black Milano;37068353]In essence, taxing your wealth while you're dead incentives you to dissipate it while you're alive, instead of forming long term capital that can be worked and improved upon in further generations.[/QUOTE] That's just nonsensical. What if you die suddenly before you "dissipate" your funds? "Sorry, we're going to take the money you wanted to give to your kids. We need the money to build a bridge in Alaska that no one needs."
[QUOTE=electric926;37098488]Because the gifter can't fight the tax when they die.[/QUOTE] what? when the gifter is alive they pay the tax, how is that "fighting"? [editline]5th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=electric926;37098488]Because the gifter can't fight the tax when they die. That's just nonsensical. What if you die suddenly before you "dissipate" your funds? "Sorry, we're going to take the money you wanted to give to your kids. We need the money to build a bridge in Alaska that no one needs."[/QUOTE] huh? he's arguing for why we should REMOVE the "death tax", not arguing for it.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37098532]what? when the gifter is alive they pay the tax, how is that "fighting"?[/QUOTE] Eh, I think I misunderstood your question. Sorry. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37098532]huh? he's arguing for why we should REMOVE the "death tax", not arguing for it.[/QUOTE] I do agree with him, I was just making a cynical statement in support of it. Sorry for the poorly worded response.
[QUOTE=Black Milano;37079345] The incentive is clear, the more your inheritance is taxed, the more you'll want to dissipate it while you're alive instead of forming long term capital.[/QUOTE] In the Milton Friedman video, he was only responding to a 100% tax, which nobody (afaik) in this thread is arguing for. If it's say like 25-50% then that same incentive to blow your money isn't there.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37112095]In the Milton Friedman video, he was only responding to a 100% tax, which nobody (afaik) in this thread is arguing for. If it's say like 25-50% then that same incentive to blow your money isn't there.[/QUOTE] Except it is. Think about it, giving inheritance buys you a "good": your son's well being if you want. Spending your money giving inheritance gets more expensive as you tax it, so you substitute "giving inheritance" with goods you can buy while you're still alive. For instance, if taxes are 30%, for every dollar you give in inheritance the government takes 0.3 cents, so your sons only receive 0.7 dollars. If on the other hand you spend that dollar while you're alive, you get to use all of it. Death tax can be seen then as the cost of not spending your money while your alive. And since inheritance tax is progressive (the more you inherit, the more tax you pay), buying more of that "good" gets progressively more expensive as opportunity cost, which is spending your money while you're alive, rises with it.
Is this still taken from money donated to charities? That just seems wrong.
[QUOTE=Funsize;37118588]Is this still taken from money donated to charities? That just seems wrong.[/QUOTE] I don't understand the question. Non-profit organizations are exempt from taxes iirc.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.