83Eagle Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Why is it that if you give your kids money before you die, its taxed. But if you die and they inherit it, it shouldn't be taxed? Good point...so then let's make both the gift tax and death tax threshhold the same--$10k or whatever it is these days. Of course that would never fly because then nearly everyone would be impacted when grandma takes the aforementioned "dirt nap" and leaves her meager estate worth only a few $Ks in real dollars but tremendous amount in sentimental value. So instead, we set some arbitrary threshhold--2 mil or 5 mil or whatever we arbitrarily degree should be "enough" for the decendants and cast it in terms of taxing the rich. Doesn't that make us all feel good? Yeah! Sock it to 'em! The problem is that all these arguments begin from the premise that the estate is society's first, and the individual's second. I reject that premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 When grandma goes toes up and leaves something of sentimental value, it usually is not of siginifcant monitary value. Tax it as such. If its a $3Mil diamond necklace, you better be able to afford keeping it. If you can't afford the taxes on that, you'd be better off selling it anyways. Chances are, its only worth $500 at the pawn shop and I bet most could afford the income taxes on that. Why have a lower threshold? Its income, plain and simple. Ain't about rich or poor. At least it shouldn't be. How may of Oprah's audience had to sell the cars she gave them to pay the taxes? Do you feel sorry for them too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS-87 Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 I honestly can't tell if that post is sarcastic... And yes I do feel bad for the folks that win great prizes they have to sell to pay for the taxes on them. I know I'd be furious if I just won a double showcase on the Price is Right and had to pay $40,000 in taxes, meaning I have to sell both the Boat I won and SUV I won that would've hauled it. Guess you'll just have to settle for the crappy kitchen set and trip to Peru that are left over... But in all seriousness, as JoeBob said, there needs to be a consideration for the Small Business owners in our country. A business that survives that first generational handoff and change of ownership should face the question of whether the new owners are competent, not whether or not they can pay 55% of a company's net assets out-of-pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
83Eagle Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 When grandma goes toes up and leaves something of sentimental value, it usually is not of siginifcant monitary value. Tax it as such. If its a $3Mil diamond necklace, you better be able to afford keeping it. If you can't afford the taxes on that, you'd be better off selling it anyways. You're dancing along the extremes again...millions of dollars on one end, versus no significant monitary value on the other. If the death tax is good for large estates, it's good for everyone, right? If not, why not? And if not, what should the arbitrary threshhold be? Face it, the death tax would never see the light of day if it affected most people's inheritance--and I would bet that most people would have to liquidate it just to pay the tax. But when we're talking about those million dollar estates, sock it to 'em, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 Actually, since our tax system is based on income, not consumption, because of that, all income should be taxed equally. Whether you get that income from a game show, hard labor, the lottery, or a relative leaving you money. Its all income. Do you have a problem with equality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
83Eagle Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 Do you have a problem with equality? Absolutely not! If society thinks the death tax is a great idea as a means to take what people have earned after they die, that practice should be applied equally, rather than after some arbitrary limit that taxes descendents unequally. Tax 'em all the same percentage from dollar one. That would be completely equal. Likewise for income taxes. If we are to have income taxes, everyone should pay the same, equal percentage of their income as taxes, rather than the current inequal system that discourages productivity. If everyone were taxed the same equal rate, without deductions and loopholes, it would ensure that everyone paid their fair share of government services commensurate with their abilities, rather than half the country paying no income taxes like we have now. Would you have a problem with that true equality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 Nope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBob Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 Let's boil it down to the most basic level: Is it your money to do with as you want? - or - Is it the Government's money to do with as they want? If it's the government's money, why should I work to earn it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 After you pay your taxes, yes, you can do with it what you will. If you inherit money, win the lottery, find gold in your backyard, get a job, you pay taxes on that because its income to you, then you can do with the remainder as you see fit. Why should some income be exempt? Pretty simple, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted December 20, 2010 Author Share Posted December 20, 2010 Yah, at that level, JoeBob, it's very clearly the government's money, eh? A dollar bill is a federal reserve bank note. The minting of money is a government thing, a function of government to promote commerce. Render unto Washington what is Washington's eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBob Posted December 20, 2010 Share Posted December 20, 2010 Is there anyone on this blog from Australia? How is the education system there? Can you point me to a link outlining the emmigration requirements? New Zealand would actually be my first choice, but I hear they're a bit picky about who they let in. And I stink from work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woapalanne Posted December 20, 2010 Share Posted December 20, 2010 Actually, Washington considers ALL of your income to be theirs. Anything they let you keep is considered to be a subsidy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBob Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Apply the lesson New York has learned to the US as a whole. Study dated February 2011. "Between 1998 and 2008, a net total of more than 1.7 million New Yorkers chose to relocate, taking with them their wealth and talent... A significant portion of the relocation from New York was to Florida and Texas, two states with no state or local income taxes, a very low cost of living, and a reasonable and predictable regulatory environment in which to conduct business." http://pfnyc.org/reports/2011-Personal-Income-Tax.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 It's Grandma's money when she is alive. If she wants it to go to her heirs or next door neighbor - she should do that. When she dies, yes, it is the USG money (to tax). She should make arrangements for joint ownership, POD, etc. when alive. My mother had a very modest net worth. Her house was paid for and she did have some CDs/IRAs. All her liquid capital she had her children listed as 'POD' - payment on death - so no USG taxes on that, regardless of amount. For most estate taxes, the first $1,000,000 is not touched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 So decreased taxes stimulate the economy? That's why businesses are flocking to South Dakota (lowest business taxes in the USA) and stay away from states like California and New York. :-> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now