Inheritance/Estate/Death taxes - General

This thread is mostly pertaining to the idea of an American inheritance tax. Since economic conditions (and I base this statement off [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient"]Gini coefficients[/URL]) differ across borders, so will the foundation of the debate. After reading [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1135147"]this thread,[/URL] I decided that an[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_tax"] inheritance tax[/URL] was a topic worthy of its own thread. First, we have the initial decision. Do you support or are against an inheritance tax? Even then, among supporters, there is debate. How much is enough to tax and whom should we take it from? Simply post what you believe and then we can attack and defend points of view as is customary in a debate. I support an inheritance tax. The percentage paid would vary on income per year. (Just to be clear, K = thousand, M = million) 0-25K wouldn't be affected. 25K-50K would pay 5% 50K-100K would pay 10% 100K - 500K would be 20% 500K - 800K would be 30% 800K-1M would be 40% Anything >$1M would be 50% and the increase would stop there. [sp]Off-topic, I suck at coming up with thread titles. If a mod or something could come up with a better one and change it I'd appreciate that.[/sp]

I don't necessarily think that it should stop at 50% for >$1M. In an ideal system the money goes to those who earn it, so I don't think the children of billionaires should automatically become billionaires too. It would encourage large portions of money to be kept stagnant and not flow through the economy. Imagine the millions upon millions that just sit in Paris Hilton's bank. I'm not suggesting a 90% tax or anything but the amounts over $1M could be the most important ones to get back in the economy.

Do you mean that percentage reduced from that bracket only? Like if you have 1M the first 50k has 5%, the next has 10% off, the next 400k has 20% off, etc?

[QUOTE=Mlisen14;32951962]I don't necessarily think that it should stop at 50% for >$1M. In an ideal system the money goes to those who earn it, so I don't think the children of billionaires should automatically become billionaires too. It would encourage large portions of money to be kept stagnant and not flow through the economy. Imagine the millions upon millions that just sit in Paris Hilton's bank. I'm not suggesting a 90% tax or anything but the amounts over $1M could be the most important ones to get back in the economy.[/QUOTE] so it's their money they earned but they aren't allowed to give even half of it to their children? [editline]24th October 2011[/editline] you dont tax people simply because you can

NightmareXx you misinterpret the progressive taxation system, only ever dollar over $1M gets taxed at 50%. It's guaranteed their children would receive over half.

Aren't there some kind of taxes for giving money to people? I think that they should apply that to this instead.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;32953295]NightmareXx you misinterpret the progressive taxation system, only ever dollar over $1M gets taxed at 50%. It's guaranteed their children would receive over half.[/QUOTE] I don't think he is arguing with the percentage, but the other person's idea that a child shouldn't inherit their parents wealth. I agree with him, that idea is ridiculous. You build a nest not just for yourself and current family, but your future family as well.

The inheritance tax doesn't make any sense in my opinion. Some people succeed and built a huge fortune, paying taxes throughout that process with every paycheck. Thereafter once they die the government expects to receive a huge chunk of that? They already gave their taxes, give it to the family members.

[QUOTE=Frederick;32953508]The inheritance tax doesn't make any sense in my opinion. Some people succeed and built a huge fortune, paying taxes throughout that process with every paycheck. Thereafter once they die the government expects to receive a huge chunk of that? They already gave their taxes, give it to the family members.[/QUOTE] You're aware that the idea behind this isn't that those taxes go to the government so that the congress can get a raise. People who think this is a good idea think so because they want more money to go back into bettering society as a whole. Whether that's through healthcare or education or infrastructure refurbishing is up for debate, but don't act like they're "giving it to the government" because that is entirely different from "putting it back into healthcare and education".

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32953674]You're aware that the idea behind this isn't that those taxes go to the government so that the congress can get a raise. People who think this is a good idea think so because they want more money to go back into bettering society as a whole. Whether that's through healthcare or education or infrastructure refurbishing is up for debate, but don't act like they're "giving it to the government" because that is entirely different from "putting it back into healthcare and education".[/QUOTE] I do understand, but what I believe is that it is the choice of the earner, through a will, to decide what occurs with his savings. Just because it might go to a good cause doesn't justify this tax. Let the family decide whether or not they want it to go to education or healthcare.

[QUOTE=Mlisen14;32951962]I don't necessarily think that it should stop at 50% for >$1M. In an ideal system the money goes to those who earn it, so I don't think the children of billionaires should automatically become billionaires too. It would encourage large portions of money to be kept stagnant and not flow through the economy. Imagine the millions upon millions that just sit in Paris Hilton's bank. I'm not suggesting a 90% tax or anything but the amounts over $1M could be the most important ones to get back in the economy.[/QUOTE] I think going any higher would start to become absurd. We can't put too much pressure on the wealthy. If people see staying small as a better alternative to becoming rich, or on a larger scale, small businesses preferring to stay small rather than attempt to expand, then I fear the economy and its growth would suffer some sort of reverse-stagnation. Caused not by the wealth being pooled into the hands of the few, but by the refusal of wealth by the hands of the many. [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;32952250]Do you mean that percentage reduced from that bracket only? Like if you have 1M the first 50k has 5%, the next has 10% off, the next 400k has 20% off, etc?[/QUOTE] It's based off of income per year, so if you make under $25K a year none of your money would be affected by the tax, while people who make millions will give 50%. It's to ensure less fortunate people and families who have a hard time affording basic things like food and clothes are not put under more pressure.

[QUOTE=Frederick;32953508]The inheritance tax doesn't make any sense in my opinion. Some people succeed and built a huge fortune, paying taxes throughout that process with every paycheck. Thereafter once they die the government expects to receive a huge chunk of that? They already gave their taxes, give it to the family members.[/QUOTE] Who cares? They're dead anyway, they can't take their money with them. And big fucking whoop dee doo their kids won't get an extra few billion because they're probably already billionaires before their parents died. People like you are the reason why the income disparity in the US is like a 3rd world country.

My main problem with an inheritance/death tax is that the money is being taxed twice in many instances, once when it was originally earned and then again when it is passed on. I believe that many people get jobs not just for themselves but for their families as well. The desire to provide for your children and your children's children is a strong one, and drive many.

[QUOTE=dialogical;32959922]My main problem with an inheritance/death tax is that the money is being taxed twice in many instances, once when it was originally earned and then again when it is passed on. I believe that many people get jobs not just for themselves but for their families as well. The desire to provide for your children and your children's children is a strong one, and drive many.[/QUOTE] For a lot of millionaires who work in derivatives trading, that is often not the case, and until we close loopholes in the tax code, it will continue to be that way. What is fair about traders arbitrarily classifying their income as interest?

I don't know why the government should get a huge chunk out of someones will and testament, if they just died. Who knows if their kids actually really need the money and the government is taking a large amount of it.

[QUOTE=crackberry;33000464]I don't know why the government should get a huge chunk out of someones will and testament, if they just died. Who knows if their kids actually really need the money and the government is taking a large amount of it.[/QUOTE] It would only be 50% of every dollar after 1 million dollars. Do you know of anyone in dire need of money past 1 million dollars?

"you don't need that much money so im going to make you give some of it to me"

I see a large inheritance tax being a possible way of accomplishing what a large income tax does, while mediating the issue of taking money out of the hands of those making use of it. What it you had a flat income tax, which would allow a person to use and hopefully reinvest almost all earnings, and then, when they die, collect pretty much all that money and put it to use for the public good. Seems like the best of both worlds to me. [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] This is, of course, assuming that it's the proper action to take that money at all, as has been pointed out in this thread. I'm merely pointing out how it could be an alternative.

Utter horse shit That money has already been taxed, the government shouldn't be taking even more of your money now that you're giving it to your loved ones [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=NightmareXx;33003540]"you don't need that much money so im going to make you give some of it to me"[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=NightmareXx;33003540]"you don't need that much money so im going to make you give some of it to me"[/QUOTE] The same thing could be said about all taxes on income or corporate profit. Are we going to just abolish taxation? [editline]27th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=RyanDv3;33003598]I see a large inheritance tax being a possible way of accomplishing what a large income tax does, while mediating the issue of taking money out of the hands of those making use of it. What it you had a flat income tax, which would allow a person to use and hopefully reinvest almost all earnings, and then, when they die, collect pretty much all that money and put it to use for the public good. Seems like the best of both worlds to me. [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] This is, of course, assuming that it's the proper action to take that money at all, as has been pointed out in this thread. I'm merely pointing out how it could be an alternative.[/QUOTE] Except that we already know that the ultra-wealthy have tended [I]not[/I] to invest in a less-than-great economy?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33003731]The same thing could be said about all taxes on income or corporate profit. Are we going to just abolish taxation?[/QUOTE] "We're already stealing your money so why not steal it some more"

[QUOTE=Kopimi;33003808]"We're already stealing your money so why not steal it some more"[/QUOTE] Yes, quotes are amusing and so is comparing taxation to stealing. This is not how you debate a policy.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33003912]Yes, quotes are amusing and so is comparing taxation to stealing. This is not how you debate a policy.[/QUOTE] Is that an inaccurate representation of your argument then? You justified the estate tax by the fact that we're already taxing people, so why not tax them more? [quote=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stealing] 1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission. [/quote] You don't have much of a choice in whether or not you pay taxes, so I don't see why the comparison is invalid

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33003731]The same thing could be said about all taxes on income or corporate profit. Are we going to just abolish taxation? [editline]27th October 2011[/editline] Except that we already know that the ultra-wealthy have tended [I]not[/I] to invest in a less-than-great economy?[/QUOTE] Unless your money is inherited, you only come into money by using your money. This system would only reward action, not miserly behavior. Also, what does people's likelihood to invest during bad economic times have to do with system I just proposed? Furthmore, why should someone invest when they think, or even know that they'll lose money? If people made decisions like that, the whole economy would surely collapse.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;33003965]Is that an inaccurate representation of your argument then? You justified the estate tax by the fact that we're already taxing people, so why not tax them more[/QUOTE] Extreme wealth is often perpetuated through inheritance, and that kind of dynastic continuation of the upper class cannot go on, it is an affront to any egalitarian society.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33004088]Extreme wealth is often perpetuated through inheritance, and that kind of dynastic continuation of the upper class cannot go on, it is an affront to any egalitarian society.[/QUOTE] Uh So, rich people aren't allowed to be rich? What kind of weird robin hood complex do you have going on that you feel like you have the right to tell people whether or not they're allowed to have a certain amount of money? Give me 70% of whatever money you have Mega. Why? Because I say so.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;33004170]Uh So, rich people aren't allowed to be rich? What kind of weird robin hood complex do you have going on that you feel like you have the right to tell people whether or not they're allowed to have a certain amount of money? Give me 70% of whatever money you have Mega. Why? Because I say so.[/QUOTE] And we used to have income taxes of over 70%, we were doing fine. As for [I]me[/I] giving [I]you[/I] money specifically, that's not how taxes work. Ideally they go back into services for the well-being of the economy, citizenry, and government. If they don't, then that needs reform.

50% of 1mln? Too big.

I don't agree on giving away 50% to the corrupted government. Chances are most of the tax will be spent on stupid shit like military and not shit that actually needs money.

They tax me on what I buy, the money I make, and the land I own. Nothing I own when I die is untaxed, you don't need to double dip on my savings.