Every time I see or hear someone say something like this I break something that person owns and needs. When they object to it, I merely point out that now they will have to spend some money to replace it, and that according to their logic this is good for the economy.
Your dad has an estate of over $5 million and you are complaining that it will be taxed before you get your hands on it? Boo freaking hoo.
It doesn't bleed anything while they are alive, it taxes the income that their heirs receive from the estate.
The exclusion amount is over $5 million this year... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States
Ah, 8th grade social studies. Good times. Columbus worked peacefully with the Native Americans. George Washington was a swell fellow. And WWII got the nation out of the Great Depression. Since war is so great for the economy and only bad because people die, why don't two large nations agree to stage fake massive wars against each other 24/7? They'll build large ships and planes and just take turns blowing each others ships/planes to pieces. All of it will be coordinated in a manner to prevent anyone from ever getting hurt or killed. So, what say you? Good plan or great plan? Or, is it a completely idiotic plan because it's based on a false premise? Frederic Bastiat is turning in his grave.
For one, the thread is about the coming change, which lowers the $5 million threshold apparently. Second, I think it is a bad argument to say "oh, well at least your dad has an estate large enough for this to be an issue. cry-baby!!". If my family was poor(er), could I not also object to a 55% estate tax, even if it was unlikely to impact me? The validity of the tax should be argued based on its merits - why 55%, why over $1 million, how does it help, how does it hurt, etc.? Not "you must come from wealth so sure you oppose this"...
WW2 forced the expansion of manufacturing efficiency, capacity and technology in the US. Post war exports to rebuild the destroyed nations continued it. The GI bill educated a generation. The argument for estate taxes is partly about maintaining an equitable wealth distribution. The self-replicating nature of great wealth threatens democracy. It's partly about funding the nation without causing undo hardship. But I can tell you anybody with a large estate can arrange it so the future generations get the money and not the government. Getting your estate taxed at the max rate is really just a stupidity test.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia and at peace with Eurasia, except when Oceania was at war with Eurasia and at peace with Eastasia.
Unfortunately this "wealth" is not as easily defined as you would have it. Family farms are disappearing, for instance, because the land is technically worth "x" amount on paper, but "x" amount cannot be achieved until it is sold, often for less than the appraised price. The big agri-corporations love to pounce on these sweet parcels, and the children of hard working people get screwed. The same is true for many small businesses. IMO, the inheritance tax would be more fair if it were based on the revenue received for an average of the prior five years of income derived from that land or small business.
The same could be said of all taxes. Doesn't the worker deserve his wages more than the government? Doesn't the shopper deserve his spending money more than the government? Doesn't the landowner deserve his money more than the government? You still need to pay for government somehow.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fEdzkmhwf5k?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
First off, I get no inheritance from my parents, zil. But I think the estate tax is the worst tax there is. Why? It's the money that has already been taxed before why do you tax it again? Naming it a transaction so you can tax it is stupid. It has no basis, you do that and you can give any reason to tax anything at all. eg, you lend a person $10, it needs to be taxed because it's a transaction, that money will be used to do something ... On the other hand, I think you should tax that estate while it was growing. Tax the gain that was made from investment higher than income tax rather than less. That money was indeed gained with very little effort. The only thing you do to acquire that return is to have a lot of money to start.
I thought he was joking about the 8th grade history. Korea? Vietnam? Laos? Cambodia? Afghanistan? Iran? Iraq? Or the dozens of other locations where the so called proxy wars were fought? How soon people forget. Don't want to derail the thread, so, I think these estate tax exemptions are a little more complicated than what they seem to be lead on in this thread.
