Inheritance Taxes Discourage Oligarchy. Hence libertarian types hate inheritance taxes

Privilege? It's his ****ing money and his ****ing company! It's HIS. It wasn't gifted to him by some mythical force. If he wants to pass down his money or turn over his business to his kid (or anybody else of his choosing), he is free to do so.

What you are advocating is basically legalized theft by somebody powerful enough to get away with it (the government).


"Selfish... unchecked privilege"... Nothing pisses me off more than people who think they have a right to other people's property.

 

That is a straw-man argument if I've ever seen one. Libertarians want the federal government to be extremely small. So they don't want any entity, rich or poor, "controlling" it. They basically want the federal government to worry about defense and national security. That's about it.

They are strict constitutionalists.

Ron Paul speaks about how corporations have so much influence in government. He says we don't have Capitalism anymore... it's Corporatism. So obviously, he's not fond of wealthy corporations being in bed with the government.

Your post really doesn't make any sense.

 

It amazes me when a person like you says it's "selfish" for a person to simply want to keep what they have earned. Yet it's not selfish for you to advocate that they have much of what they earned be taken from them.

It also amazes me that people like you call it "unchecked privilege" as if some mythical being from the sky just gave them money... like it wasn't worked for and earned and they are just lucky people who are "privileged" to have what they have.

Pisses me off.

 

You're definitely misinterpreting me if you think my issue is with Buffett handing the reins of the company to his son. My problem is with him handing everything to his son and then saying that the wealthy need to be taxed more so that other people can't do the same (while he also makes plans to leave his wealth to private charity and avoid taxes).

 

I found a history of estate tax that I believe was done in 2003. Using 1960 (the middle of your example), the exemption amount was $60,000 or about $303,000 in "2003 dollars". Is it your contention that estates valued at over $300,000 should be subject to estate tax? For example, if one works all their life, has $500,000 in their 401K that they saved during their working years, a $300,000 house they worked to pay off and a $1,000,000 life insurance policy, that their estate should be taxed on $1.5 million dollars (after a $300,000 exemption)?

 

Sorry if the truth pisses you off. Buffet's kid and kids like him are privileged. Sure both taking and keeping are selfish. The difference is one is good public policy and the other one isn't. In this case it seems increasingly sub optimal for us to allow increasing levels of inequality because we don't want to pay for the efforts and services we need to combat inequality.

Steve_Francis_rules, I'm not at all misinterpreting what you say. You are saying that Buffet's idea should be ignored because he himself is a hypocrite. Him being a hypocrite is exactly why Buffet believes as he does, why he believes that only through government action can we provide some much needed checks. There is an inordinate desire to provide for your own and your own in-group. It's an overriding imperative that causes a net harm when not sufficiently controlled for through collective government action, e.g. taxation.

 

Yes, Buffett's kids grew up wealthy... so what? Their dad created his wealth. If their dad wants to give them his money when he dies, why in the world does the government get off thinking they should get a fat cut of it? It's not their money. It was already taxed. It's his money... and if he wants to give it to his kids, it should be no different than him buying his kid a car or giving his kid $20 to go to the movies. It's his money, and he can give it to whoever he wants. Especially his kids. He worked his ass off to give his family financial security.

That money can help his family for generations. Good for him and his family.

The Buffett's being rich has nothing to do with inequality. Them being rich doesn't make other people poor. It's not a zero-sum game.

All you are advocating is legalized theft. It's wrong, and I can't believe some people think otherwise.

 

First off - isn't son in his sixties himself? You act like he just handed some snotnosed brat a billion dollar trust fund.

Second, he didn't name his son his successor - he named him non executive board chair which I don't believe has any day to day responsibility and probably receives no comp other than a yearly share grant as directors fees ( if its like other companies- probably like 100-200k year...maybe more I haven't checked)

His true successor is the as of yet unnamed CEO - probably going to be Ajit Jain last time I remember reading up on it.

You're not having a very good thread bro.

 

Good god - what is this sludge pit?

Somebody traveled in time from the 1960's and is using 2003 dollars to pay the estate tax?

Do you really want to understand how the estate tax works?

 

I've just looked at this again and you're correct. I guess I was mislead by all the news articles I saw headlined "Warren Buffett officially names son successor."

 

I'm advocating taxes at a higher level than they are currently. If you think that is theft, then you must be some anarcho-capitalist or so deluded by libertarian economics that you have disembarked from reality. Enjoy the voyage.

 

I know how the estate tax works and I know the current exemption is over $5,000,000. I was responding to glynch who indicated that he thinks the rate should go back to what it was in the 50s, 60s or 70s. Back in 1960, the exemption was $60,000. Obviously $60,000 back then is not the same as $60,000 today (or in 2003 when the historical chart I used was created). Anyway, in today's dollars, $60,000 is over $300,000. My question to glynch was if he thought today's exemption should be around $300,000.

 

Especially the street person picking up cans. If they find themselves in a situation where they get a inheritance. No matter the size of the inheritance. To only tax the rich is discrimination. Either you tax everyone the same or you tax no one.

 

Why don't you just use actual historical data. It's all available.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/ninetyestate.pdf

In 1960 you can see the estate tax impacted around 2% or so of all estates.

 

It is money that they were able to earn because of the benefits society created for them, an educated workforce, reasonable infrastructure for transportation and communications, etc. Those are debts the estate owes and should pay.

 

Little pisses me off more than people who think they can benefit from all of the advantages that American society gives them, such as the most dynamic, wealthy markets in the world, and not have to give back through taxes.

Selfish, unchecked privilege is what the wealthy seem to feel, they should be able to amass wealth, much of it off the backs of labor to whom they refuse to give raises, and then feel like it is not morally repugnant to b**** about paying the lowest tax rate in the industrialized world and the lowest rates we have seen in this country since the nineteen-teens.

Greed is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, it is not a virtue.