The Federal Estate Tax or "Death Tax" is a tax on the estate of a dead person.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States[/URL]
It has varied over the past decade in both rate and cut-off, and was completely eliminated in 2010.
Mitt Romney wants to get rid of this tax completely. Obama wants to keep the tax.
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.
There are many reasons for and against this tax.
What do you think and why.
It should be removed regardless of which candidate does it. The government taxes you enough already, they just want ways to get even more.
The government doesn't have any reason to tax me again after I die other than to take more of my money, the tax doesn't really make much since because other than helping to pay their bills (Which I've already been taxed for!) it takes money from my surviving relatives who may need it to help pay bills or give me a decent burial.
When you choose to tax someone for dying it seems more like a way to try to get people to work longer so they can afford the tax, rather than retiring when they deserve to so they can enjoy the last years of their lives.
In my opinion it just seems like an excuse for the government to "double dip."
[QUOTE=Onion836;36811148]It should be removed regardless of which candidate does it. The government taxes you enough already, they just want ways to get even more.[/QUOTE]
Do you believe that despite us being in a financial crisis and the dead person not needing his things anymore, we should remove taxes?
[QUOTE=Zally13;36811158]Do you believe that despite us being in a financial crisis and the dead person not needing his things anymore, we should remove taxes?[/QUOTE]
I haven't done the research on this, but I would assume the money gained from the estate tax is completely and utterly irrelevant on the scale of the US budget. Also, a person works and gains wealth for both themselves and their family.
*I'm attempting to find some source now.
Welp, I can't seem to find any. It's small enough to not be listed on any of the top governmental income sources.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36811158]Do you believe that despite us being in a financial crisis[/QUOTE]
Giving the government more money won't improve our financial situation at all. Citizen's shouldn't have to pay for an incompetent government's mismanagement of spending.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36811158] the dead person not needing his things anymore[/QUOTE]
How about the dead person's family and the people who inherit it?
[QUOTE=sgman91;36811223]I haven't done the research on this, but I would assume the money gained from the estate tax is completely and utterly irrelevant on the scale of the US budget. Also, a person works and gains wealth for both themselves and their family.
*I'm attempting to find some source now.
Welp, I can't seem to find any. It's small enough to not be listed on any of the top governmental income sources.[/QUOTE]
A person works and gains wealth for both themselves and their family, and they're taxed on income.
The estate tax, in my opinion, could be considered a final tribute to the government for providing the services and abilities for them to attain a household. I would much prefer this over poor people being taxed more, at the very least.
Abolishing the estate tax would actually lead to billions of dollars of tax lost per year. [URL=http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/gay-marriage-and-the-estate-tax/5007][1][/url]
[editline]17th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Onion836;36811299]Giving the government more money won't improve our financial situation at all. Citizen's shouldn't have to pay for an incompetent government's mismanagement of spending.
How about the dead person's family and the people who inherit it?[/QUOTE]
As cited above, it adds billions to the federal budget each year. Do you believe the complete lack of taxation would improve the economy?
The estate tax only affects people who have estates of over $5,000,000 in value. It could be considered a form of progressive tax. The people who are taxed don't lose it, and it would be cheaper than if he was continuing to live in terms of taxes.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36811310]A person works and gains wealth for both themselves and their family, and they're taxed on income.
The estate tax, in my opinion, could be considered a final tribute to the government for providing the services and abilities for them to attain a household. I would much prefer this over poor people being taxed more, at the very least.
Abolishing the estate tax would actually lead to billions of dollars of tax lost per year. [URL="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/gay-marriage-and-the-estate-tax/5007"][1][/URL][/QUOTE]
Final tribute? Isn't a lifetime of paying taxes tribute enough?
That article doesn't source their numbers, but let's say we take it at face value and assume a $30 billion dollar gain from an estate tax (average of what they gave). That's right around 2.3% of the US yearly deficit (2011 deficit was right around 1.3 trillion). Like I said, on it's own that's irrelevant. If it was included in an actual plan I might be a bit more receptive of it.
[QUOTE]As cited above, it adds billions to the federal budget each year. Do you believe the complete lack of taxation would improve the economy? Everyone acknowledges that, why else do a stimulus?
The estate tax only affects people who have estates of over $5,000,000 in value. It could be considered a form of progressive tax. The people who are taxed don't lose it, and it would be cheaper than if he was continuing to live in terms of taxes.[/QUOTE]
In 2013 the estate tax exemption is going down to $1,000,000. I believe any money at all in hands of people improves the economy.
If you continue to read the article you posted they say, and I quote, "The estate tax is set to disappear in 2010 and come back with a vengeance in 2011. As of then, the maximum exemption from the tax would be only $1 million, down from $2 million today. And the top rate would be 55 percent, up from 46 percent today.Many Democrats oppose all efforts to set an exemption more generous than $1 million or a top rate below 55 percent. This is unreasonable. A $1 million inheritance is not what it used to be. Split among three heirs and invested in bonds, it would bring in about $17,000 a year. Try living on that."
[QUOTE=Zally13;36811310]Abolishing the estate tax would actually lead to billions of dollars of tax lost per year.[/QUOTE]
They make trillions of dollars from taxes already, they should take responsibility for their actions, rather than make people pay for it. They don't need more money, they need to balance spending.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36811310]As cited above, it adds billions to the federal budget each year. Do you believe the complete lack of taxation would improve the economy?[/QUOTE]
I never said anything about complete lack of tax, I'm talking about the estate tax. Again, what makes you think taxing people will somehow improve the economy? The economy isn't how much money the government has, it's affected by private business and transactions.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36811661]Final tribute? Isn't a lifetime of paying taxes tribute enough?
That article doesn't source their numbers, but let's say we take it at face value and assume a $30 billion dollar gain from an estate tax (average of what they gave). That's right around 2.3% of the US yearly deficit (2011 deficit was right around 1.3 trillion). Like I said, on it's own that's irrelevant. If it was included in an actual plan I might be a bit more receptive of it.
In 2013 the estate tax exemption is going down to $1,000,000. I believe any money at all in hands of people improves the economy.
If you continue to read the article you posted they say, and I quote, "The estate tax is set to disappear in 2010 and come back with a vengeance in 2011. As of then, the maximum exemption from the tax would be only $1 million, down from $2 million today. And the top rate would be 55 percent, up from 46 percent today.Many Democrats oppose all efforts to set an exemption more generous than $1 million or a top rate below 55 percent. This is unreasonable. A $1 million inheritance is not what it used to be. Split among three heirs and invested in bonds, it would bring in about $17,000 a year. Try living on that."[/QUOTE]
2.3% still adds quite a bit. If we start removing taxes by saying, "Well, it's okay X%, we may as well remove it" we're going to end up getting rid of a lot of income. It all adds up. It's better than having it all in one place, say, a much larger income rate. The idea that people should live off an estate without contributing is why an economy would decline.
I won't say that the current form of an estate tax is the best thing ever, and I support increasing the value in which it is taxed on. So yes, in the current form it's much worse than it could be, but where the wealthy have large tax cuts, it's better to tax this so that people can't just live off of it rather than taxing those continually working and adding to the economy.
[editline]17th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Onion836;36811852]They make trillions of dollars from taxes already, they should take responsibility for their actions, rather than make people pay for it. They don't need more money, they need to balance spending.
I never said anything about complete lack of tax, I'm talking about the estate tax. Again, what makes you think taxing people will somehow improve the economy? The economy isn't how much money the government has, it's affected by private business and transactions.[/QUOTE]
Balancing spending depends on what sort of spending the government does. I believe we should spend less on things such as the defense budget, and instead spend that on fixing the defecit and creating a better infrastructure where we need it. We have roads that could use fixing, transportation issues, and spending more money on student loans so that students could get a better education based on if they want to work for it rather than what family they are born into is important. Allowing people who wish to work and contribute is important instead of letting the money stay in a rich person's bank account where it's not adding to the economy. Yes, the private sector is what contributes to the economy, but I believe that government spending should be put in places such as education to allow the economy to thrive.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36811879]2.3% still adds quite a bit. If we start removing taxes by saying, "Well, it's okay X%, we may as well remove it" we're going to end up getting rid of a lot of income. It all adds up. It's better than having it all in one place, say, a much larger income rate. The idea that people should live off an estate without contributing is why an economy would decline.
I won't say that the current form of an estate tax is the best thing ever, and I support increasing the value in which it is taxed on. So yes, in the current form it's much worse than it could be, but where the wealthy have large tax cuts, it's better to tax this so that people can't just live off of it rather than taxing those continually working and adding to the economy.
[editline]17th July 2012[/editline]
Balancing spending depends on what sort of spending the government does. I believe we should spend less on things such as the defense budget, and instead spend that on fixing the defecit and creating a better infrastructure where we need it. We have roads that could use fixing, transportation issues, and spending more money on student loans so that students could get a better education based on if they want to work for it rather than what family they are born into is important. Allowing people who wish to work and contribute is important instead of letting the money stay in a rich person's bank account where it's not adding to the economy. Yes, the private sector is what contributes to the economy, but I believe that government spending should be put in places such as education to allow the economy to thrive.[/QUOTE]
That 2.3% is also assuming no economic depression is going to come from the tax, which just isn't the case. Any and all tax is a leak from the economy which causes, even if slight, economic shrinkage. So that 2.3% would be a smaller number in reality.
My biggest beef with the estate tax is a moral one. I just plain don't think it's right to tax money that has already been taxed. It just seems wrong to me.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36812040]That 2.3% is also assuming no economic depression is going to come from the tax, which just isn't the case. Any and all tax is a leak from the economy which causes, even if slight, economic shrinkage. So that 2.3% would be a smaller number in reality.
My biggest beef with the estate tax is a moral one. I just plain don't think it's right to tax money that has already been taxed. It just seems wrong to me.[/QUOTE]
Why is any and all tax a leak from the economy?
It redistributes funds and allows us to invest in projects that will further help the economy. The internet was assisted being created through government funds, for example. No taxation would mean that those with a lot of wealth would continue to sit on it for a long period of time. The largest economic boom we've had, in the '50s, had much more taxation than we do now. [url=http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf]In fact, the rich have the lowest taxes in 60 years.[/url]
You add to an economy by redistributing the wealth by allowing the poor that can't afford education the ability to get it, not the other way around.
Any money the government spends has a component of waste and fraud that doesn't exist when spent by the public. I never said the economy can't grow when taxes go up, but that high taxes cause the economy to either shrink or grow slower. That's one of the purposes of a progressive tax system. So that as the economy grows/shrinks the high/lower taxes temper the change.
I don't like death tax because once you die there is nothing that is tax supported that will be burdened by you.
Well it only applies to very rich people and they usually have trusts or other methods of transferring their riches without being taxed a lot.
We get taxed enough already, I don't like the idea of being taxed when I'm dead. The money should go to my family and relatives, then it can be taxed when they're the ones using it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36812281]Any money the government spends has a component of waste and fraud that doesn't exist when spent by the public. I never said the economy can't grow when taxes go up, but that high taxes cause the economy to either shrink or grow slower. That's one of the purposes of a progressive tax system. So that as the economy grows/shrinks the high/lower taxes temper the change.[/QUOTE]
There's no proof that high taxes do this. If you can find proof of this, share it with me. Germany, for example, has one of the highest tax rates, yet one of the highest economies. The US also has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and yet it also has the highest GDP. Many Western European nations have very high tax rates, accompanied by high GDP's, can you find me a source that says otherwise with evidence?
[editline]17th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;36813076]We get taxed enough already, I don't like the idea of being taxed when I'm dead. The money should go to my family and relatives, then it can be taxed when they're the ones using it.[/QUOTE]
Unless you have a large, wealthy estate, I don't believe you should get an estate tax. I think it should, however, prevent people from living off an estate and not contributing to the the economy.
I think it should be kept. I see no reason why the state shouldn't confiscate non-inherited finances, and why we can't tax inheritances- it's essentially an income tax. It's not like we're taxing average people, either. The inheritance tax has always been for the richer portion of the population, to keep in check the old money habits this country had. We're not talking ol' grandpa leaving his house and 2,000$ savings to little Lucy, we're talking Bill Gates leaving his kids 8 billion for essentially doing nothing to earn it.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36818652]There's no proof that high taxes do this. If you can find proof of this, share it with me. Germany, for example, has one of the highest tax rates, yet one of the highest economies. The US also has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and yet it also has the highest GDP. Many Western European nations have very high tax rates, accompanied by high GDP's, can you find me a source that says otherwise with evidence?
[editline]17th July 2012[/editline]
Unless you have a large, wealthy estate, I don't believe you should get an estate tax. I think it should, however, prevent people from living off an estate and not contributing to the the economy.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,3425,en_2649_34117_41487020_119684_1_1_1,00.html[/URL]
Here's an abstract of a study that ranked what types of taxes have the largest negative impact on economic growth, but the key is that all forms mentioned were found to have a negative impact. It doesn't really help to compare country to country when it comes to taxes and economic growth because there are so many other internal factors. It's much more effective to compare a single country as it increases taxes/lowers taxes, but even that can be difficult because of the huge amount of factors.
Truthfully, it's a pretty commonly accepted fact in economics that taxes slow economic growth.
Death tax sounds like the stupidest thing ever. I thought profiting from death is frowned upon?
On one hand I understand the arguments against it, but on the other hand I have absolutely no sympathy for the trust-fund inheritance kids who are bitching about how they didn't get all of their parents' ridiculous wealth simply for coming from their specific genitals.
It's just really hard to give a shit about people not getting money they didn't earn to begin with.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36820681]On one hand I understand the arguments against it, but on the other hand I have absolutely no sympathy for the trust-fund inheritance kids who are bitching about how they didn't get all of their parents' ridiculous wealth simply for coming from their specific genitals.
It's just really hard to give a shit about people not getting money they didn't earn to begin with.[/QUOTE]
I hope you're not implying that death tax should exist because of this
[QUOTE=Lankist;36820681]On one hand I understand the arguments against it, but on the other hand I have absolutely no sympathy for the trust-fund inheritance kids who are bitching about how they didn't get all of their parents' ridiculous wealth simply for coming from their specific genitals.
It's just really hard to give a shit about people not getting money they didn't earn to begin with.[/QUOTE]
Good thing jealous emotions don't determine law and rationality does. "Hard to sympathize" with them is hardly a rational reason to keep it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36820636][URL]http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,3425,en_2649_34117_41487020_119684_1_1_1,00.html[/URL]
Here's an abstract of a study that ranked what types of taxes have the largest negative impact on economic growth, but the key is that all forms mentioned were found to have a negative impact. It doesn't really help to compare country to country when it comes to taxes and economic growth because there are so many other internal factors. It's much more effective to compare a single country as it increases taxes/lowers taxes, but even that can be difficult because of the huge amount of factors.
Truthfully, it's a pretty commonly accepted fact in economics that taxes slow economic growth.[/QUOTE]
"These findings suggest that a revenue-neutral growth-oriented tax reform would be to shift part of the revenue base towards recurrent property and consumption taxes and away from income taxes, especially corporate taxes."
It's saying that we should move from income tax to taxes like these. Even this study argues against you.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36820753]Good thing jealous emotions don't determine law and rationality does. "Hard to sympathize" with them is hardly a rational reason to keep it.[/QUOTE]
"Jealousy?"
Are you going to argue to me that the only reason I'm okay with a death tax is because I'm jealous of rich kids?
Honestly, inheritors didn't earn any of the shit they inherit. I don't see why one would think they have any right to it at all. American conservatives pride themselves on this self-made, land-of-opportunity image, but then when someone threatens their tickets to easy street suddenly it's [I]their[/I] money.
I don't understand that logic at all. Are we a capitalistic, working society which earns its keep or are we a society of inheritors who benefit solely from the labor of their predecessors?
You cannot, on one hand, say that poor people must dig themselves out of their own holes, that social programs are bad and that welfare is undesirable, but then at the same time get all pissy when you don't get your own meal ticket.
There is a fundamental discontinuity between the idea that we are a capitalistic, labor-focused society which doesn't give exorbitant handouts and the idea that the progeny of wealthy individuals have a right to exorbitant handouts with no labor whatsoever.
[editline]18th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;36820636][URL]http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,3425,en_2649_34117_41487020_119684_1_1_1,00.html[/URL]
Here's an abstract of a study that ranked what types of taxes have the largest negative impact on economic growth, but the key is that all forms mentioned were found to have a negative impact. It doesn't really help to compare country to country when it comes to taxes and economic growth because there are so many other internal factors. It's much more effective to compare a single country as it increases taxes/lowers taxes, but even that can be difficult because of the huge amount of factors.
Truthfully, it's a pretty commonly accepted fact in economics that taxes slow economic growth.[/QUOTE]
The inheritance tax is not an economic tax. Did you even read that study? It suggests moving to more personal taxation rather than corporate taxation.
I don't agree with it, but shit, your source disagrees with your position.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36820876]"Jealousy?"
Are you going to argue to me that the only reason I'm okay with a death tax is because I'm jealous of rich kids?
Honestly, inheritors didn't earn any of the shit they inherit. I don't see why one would think they have any right to it at all. American conservatives pride themselves on this self-made, land-of-opportunity image, but then when someone threatens their tickets to easy street suddenly it's [I]their[/I] money.
I don't understand that logic at all. Are we a capitalistic, working society which earns its keep or are we a society of inheritors who benefit solely from the labor of their predecessors?
You cannot, on one hand, say that poor people must dig themselves out of their holes, that social programs are bad and that welfare is undesirable, but then at the same time get all pissy when you don't get your own meal ticket.
[editline]18th July 2012[/editline]
The inheritance tax is not an economic tax. Did you even read that study? It suggests moving to more personal taxation rather than corporate taxation.
I don't agree with it, but shit, your source disagrees with your position.[/QUOTE]
Lankist has a point, and while he was probably putting it in a joking sense the first time, this is part of the idea of the inheritance tax.
If the kids who inherit all the money simply live off of it, they're not contributing to the economy. Taxes like these take some of the money inherited and reinvest it into the economy in the forms of education and infrastructure.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36820876]"Jealousy?"
Are you going to argue to me that the only reason I'm okay with a death tax is because I'm jealous of rich kids?
Honestly, inheritors didn't earn any of the shit they inherit. I don't see why one would think they have any right to it at all. American conservatives pride themselves on this self-made, land-of-opportunity image, but then when someone threatens their tickets to easy street suddenly it's [I]their[/I] money.
I don't understand that logic at all. Are we a capitalistic, working society which earns its keep or are we a society of inheritors who benefit solely from the labor of their predecessors?
[/QUOTE]
Because it's private property to be done with the owner as he or she pleases. If, in death, they choose to pass it on to a relative, that's their prerogative.
It's not a matter of the children claiming the right to ownership, it's a matter of the parent passing it on after they die.
[editline]18th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zally13;36820922]Lankist has a point, and while he was probably putting it in a joking sense the first time, this is part of the idea of the inheritance tax.
If the kids who inherit all the money simply live off of it, they're not contributing to the economy. Taxes like these take some of the money inherited and reinvest it into the economy in the forms of education and infrastructure.[/QUOTE]
They have to eat and clothe themselves. Purchasing such things contributes to an economy. And I've never heard of a millionaire sit ontop of his [I]entire[/I] sum of cash indefinitely.
When you inherit/receive money, you tend to spend it. And if they don't spend it all - well who in their right mind spends all their money anyway?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36820933]Because it's private property to be done with the owner as he or she pleases. If, in death, they choose to pass it on to a relative, that's their prerogative.
It's not a matter of the children claiming the right to ownership, it's a matter of the parent passing it on after they die.[/QUOTE]
You don't own property after your dead. How it gets passed down is the duty of our legal system.
That does not happen for free.
If you think government shouldn't tax inheritance, and it's all private property, then why should government protect your inheritance at all? Why don't you just figure out who gets what on your own damn dime. Good luck staking your claim without a court backing you up.
See, officiating that kind of shit is not cheap. The government provides you with a service in which the last will and testament of your deceased love one is legally upheld. If someone tries to violate that will, the law intervenes.
You are benefiting from government involvement and protection of inheritance, and yet you think you deserve it for free?
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=Lankist;36820966]You don't own property after your dead. How it gets passed down is the duty of our legal system.
That does not happen for free.
If you think government shouldn't tax inheritance, and it's all private property, then why should government protect your inheritance at all? Why don't you just figure out who gets what on your own damn dime. Good luck staking your claim without a court backing you up.
See, officiating that kind of shit is not cheap. The government provides you with a service in which the last will and testament of your deceased love one is legally upheld. If someone tries to violate that will, the law intervenes.
You are benefiting from government involvement and protection of inheritance, and yet you think you deserve it for free?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps I don't want to give the house I'm living in onto another person while I live because I'm still living there.
There's these things called 'wills' that try to get things from the dead to the person they desire it for after death.
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.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.