Being Profitable Is “Giving Back.” Why the estate tax should be repealed.

[grundle]

Those who practice the politics of envy are always saying that rich people should "give back" to the community.

This article says that rich people got rich by providing the community with things that the community wanted, which is enough "giving back" to justify their wealth. I agree with this article.


http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/tamny200507140847.asp

July 14, 2005, 8:47 a.m.

Being Profitable <i>Is</i> “Giving Back”

Why the estate tax should be repealed.

By John Tamny

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 272 to 162 in April to abolish the estate tax. An editorial in last Friday’s Wall Street Journal said that President Bush needs eight Senate Democrats to cross the aisle so that total repeal becomes filibuster-proof in the upper chamber.

Regardless of the Senate outcome, a big cut in the estate tax looms. Unhappy with this inevitability, estate-tax supporters have used the media to spread the false notion that repeal will save the rich from having to “give back.”

An April article in USA Today described the belief among estate-tax supporters that “wealthy Americans owe a special debt because their wealth would not be possible without tax-supported schools and regulatory agencies.” In the same article, William Gates Sr. voiced his support for the tax as “a fair payback to society for the opportunity to do business in our marvelous economy and society.” Leaving aside the questionable value of tax-supported schools and regulatory agencies, not to mention the millions of jobs created, charities funded, and taxes already paid by the wealthiest Americans, Gates and the pro-estate-tax lobby get the whole concept of giving back exactly backwards.

<b>Von Mises once wrote that the entrepreneur who fails to use his capital to the “best possible satisfaction of consumers” is “relegated to a place in which his ineptitude no longer hurts people’s well-being.” Successful entrepreneurs help consumers, while failures by definition help no one, and often hurt consumers.

Successful people, by virtue of being successful, have met previously unmet market needs, saved lives, saved consumers money, and in general have removed what Von Mises referred to as “uneasiness” from the marketplace. A look at the 2004 Forbes 400 confirms his thinking.

* Charles Schwab, the 68th richest American, made investing in the stock market easy and affordable for the middle class. In doing so he helped launch an investment boom that an increasing number of Americans are able to participate in.

* Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the 234th richest American, has developed a drug (Abraxane) that is injected into cancerous tumors. The tumors feed on Abraxane, only to be wiped out by a cancer-killing “Trojan Horse” within.

* It is estimated that Wal-Mart stores save consumers $100 billion a year. In other words, Wal-Mart’s customers get a raise every time they shop there. Unsurprisingly, Wal-Mart’s heirs and executives take up spots four through eight on the Forbes 400.

* Can anyone imagine living without Google, Amazon, and travel websites such as Expedia? Internet trailblazers Sergey Brin and Larry Page (43), Jeff Bezos (38), and Barry Diller (215) are all Forbes 400 members.

That the individuals behind the products and companies that improve our lives often reside in the Forbes 400 should not surprise us. Indeed, the greater a person’s wealth, the more likely than not that he or she did something extraordinary that benefited others. “Giving back?” High profits are the surest sign that someone has given back. Can the same be said for entrepreneurial failures?

Furthermore, it’s not just morally wrong for the government to use the estate tax to redistribute wealth, it’s also bad economic policy. Wealth by definition is savings. When savings are confiscated for government use, entrepreneurial opportunities in need of capital go wanting in favor of immediate consumption.</b>

Edward Wolff, an economics professor at New York University, told the Wall Street Journal in May that a poll showing a majority of the “rich” back estate-tax reform is a sign that “any notion of noblesse oblige is disappearing.” Wolff gets it wrong too. <b>As the late Warren Brookes once said, “we are blessed by the genius of the few.”

When the brilliant few innovate and improve our existence, we are receiving their very best and being given to in spades. The estate tax penalizes society’s greatest benefactors, and for doing so should be repealed.</b>

— John Tamny is a writer in Washington, D.C.

[Red Dog]

Your post reminds me of the people I went to school with who highlighted 3/4 of their books. ;)

[VinVega]

You really do feel the pain of the rich, don't you? :D

[X]

I don't like the estate tax but I don't see that it should have anything to do with giving back to the community.

That's the same kind of wishy-washy, touchy-feely argument that's used to justify particular taxes and tax rates in the first place.

[kvrdave]

Uber rich people don't pay estate taxes. Too many loopholes. That is why it should be repealed, and that is why it won't be.

[CRM114]

Oh, we're not calling it the "Death Tax" anymore? :lol:

Let me get a tissue. I weep for the Forbes 400. Really. :sniff:

[bhk]

The Forbes 400 people won't pay death taxes.

[JasonF]

Does anybody have a link to back up the idea that rich people don't pay estate taxes?

[bhk]

Does anybody have a link to back up the idea that rich people don't pay estate taxes?


Many of the Forbes 400 don't even live in this country and are not US Citizens.

[X]

Does anybody have a link to back up the idea that rich people don't pay estate taxes?Putting your money in a trust is one way.

[kvrdave]

Does anybody have a link to back up the idea that rich people don't pay estate taxes?

Haven't looked for a link. But it is just as simple as setting up a trust and letting your heirs control the trust. Thus the term "trust fund babies."

[classicman2]

How many estates (what percentage) are affected by the estate tax?

[classicman2]

http://www.cbpp.org/6-17-03tax.htm

ESTATE TAX REPEAL:
A Costly Windfall for the Wealthiest Americans
by Iris J. Lav and Joel Friedman

A key component of President Bush's tax package would repeal the federal estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer tax by 2009. Repealing the estate tax is costly, reducing revenues for both the federal government and states, and would provide a massive windfall for some of the country's wealthiest families.

In 1997, the estates of fewer than 43,000 people — fewer than 1.9 percent of the 2.3 million people who died that year — had to pay any estate tax. The Joint Committee on Taxation projects that the percentage of people who die whose estates will be subject to estate tax will remain at about two percent for the foreseeable future. In other words, 98 of every 100 people who die face no estate tax whatsoever.
To be subject to tax, the size of an estate must exceed $675,000 in 2001. The estate tax exemption is rising to $1 million by 2006. Note that an estate of any size may be bequeathed to a spouse free of estate tax.
Each member of a married couple is entitled to the basic $675,000 exemption. Thus, a couple can effectively exempt $1.35 million from the estate tax in 2001, rising to $2 million by 2006.
The vast bulk of estate taxes are paid on very large estates. In 1997, some 2,400 estates — the largest five percent of estates that were of sufficient size to be taxable — paid nearly half of all estate taxes. These were estates with assets exceeding $5 million. This means about half of the estate tax was paid by the estates of the wealthiest one of every 1,000 people who died.
If the estate tax had been repealed, each of these 2,400 estates with assets exceeding $5 million would have received a tax-cut windfall in 1997 that averaged about $3.5 million.
As these statistics make clear, the estates of a tiny fraction of the people who die each year — those with very large amounts of wealth — pay the bulk of all estate taxes.

Moreover, a recent Treasury Department study shows that almost no estate tax is paid by middle-income people. Most of the estate taxes are paid on the estates of people who, in addition to having very substantial wealth, still had high incomes around the time they died. The study found that 91 percent of all estate taxes are paid by the estates of people whose annual incomes exceeded $190,000 around the time of their death. Less than one percent of estate taxes are paid by the lowest-income 80 percent of the population, those with incomes below $100,000.



Small Businesses and Family Farms

Very few people leave a taxable estate that includes a family business or farm. Only six of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a family business or farm forms the majority of the estate.

Nevertheless, it often is claimed that repeal of the estate tax is necessary to save family businesses and farms — that is, to assure they do not have to be liquidated to pay estate taxes. In reality, only a small fraction of the estate tax is paid on small family businesses and farms. Current estate tax law already includes sizable special tax breaks for family businesses and farms.

To the extent that problems may remain in the taxation of small family-owned businesses and farms under the estate tax, those problems could be specifically identified and addressed at a modest cost to Treasury. Wholesale repeal of the estate tax is not needed for this purpose.

Farms and family-owned business assets account for less than four percent of all assets in taxable estates valued at less than $5 million. Only a small fraction of the estate tax is paid on the value of farms and small family businesses.
Family-owned businesses and farms are eligible for special treatment under current law, including a higher exemption. The total exemption for most estates that include a family-owned business is $1.3 million in 2001, rather than $675,000. A couple can exempt up to $2.6 million of an estate that includes a family-owned business or farm.
Still another feature of current law allows deferral of estate tax payments for up to 14 years when the value of a family-owned business or farm accounts for at least 35 percent of an estate, with interest charged at rates substantially below market rates.
Claims that family-owned businesses have to be liquidated to pay estate taxes imply that most of the value of the estate is tied up in the businesses. But businesses or farms constitute the majority of the assets in very few estates that include family-owned businesses or farms. A Treasury Department analysis of data for 1998 shows that in only 776 of the 47,482 estates that were taxable that year — or just 1.6 percent of taxable estates — did family-owned businesses assets (such as closely held stock, non-corporate businesses, or partnerships) equal at least half of the gross estate. In only 642 estates — 1.4 percent of the taxable estates — did farm assets, or farm assets and farm real estate, equal at least half of the gross estate.
Furthermore, the law can easily be changed to exempt from the estate tax a substantially larger amount of assets, including those related to family-owned farms or businesses, and this can be done without repealing or making other sweeping changes in the estate tax. When the Senate considered the estate tax last year, the Democrats offered a substitute that would have raised the exemption for a family-owned business to $8 million for a couple, effectively exempting almost all family-owned farms and three-quarters of family-owned businesses from the estate tax.

[X]

How many estates (what percentage) are affected by the estate tax?Yeah, how many people something is purposely done to. That's the measure of whether something is right or not.

[kvrdave]

How many estates (what percentage) are affected by the estate tax?


Hardly a justification of it, however.

It wouldn't affect me, yet I still think it is wrong.

[classicman2]

Yeah, how many people something is purposely done to. That's the measure of whether something is right or not.

I will agree that most Americans believe it's wrong. They see something unseemingly about the tax man riding in the funeral procession on the way to the graveyard.

But it is an indication of how Repubs look out for (and feel the pain) of the very wealthy in this country. The Democrats have offered alternatives time & time again that would preclude family farms and business from the estate tax - the same folks that the Repubs cite in every speech they make on the subject. Of course it wouldn't sound good to the people if they were to mention who they really are trying to protect - the super rich.

[X]

Hey, let's just take all the "super rich's" money. Maybe leave them with a couple hundred thousand, they don't "need" any more than that. Wouldn't want to protect them, you know.

[classicman2]

If the Repubs were really interested in protecting the folks they proclaim they want to protect from the estate tax - it could have been accomplished years ago.

It's strange that they vote against alternatives that would protect those people. No, it's not really strange. It's understandable and predictable GOP behavior.

[General Zod]

Hey, let's just take all the "super rich's" money. Maybe leave them with a couple hundred thousand, they don't "need" any more than that. Wouldn't want to protect them, you know.
:up: Punish the rich! Punish the rich! This country won't rest until we've fleeced the most successful as much as we can! We congratulate you that you'v worked hard and chosen the paths in your life to reach so much success, now pay up for that! Other people didn't and you must now pay for their choices. Equal rights ya know..

If the Repubs were really interested in protecting the folks they proclaim they want to protect from the estate tax - it could have been accomplished years ago.

It's strange that they vote against alternatives that would protect those people. No, it's not really strange. It's understandable and predictable GOP behavior.

Absolutely. It doesn't make sense. Which is why although I lean to the right on most issues, I don't trust the Republican party. What they say they are for and what their actions show are often completely different.

[classicman2]

Taxing the rich is punishing the rich?

Please!!

[General Zod]

Taxing the rich is punishing the rich?

Please!!
Over-taxing the rich is punishing the rich. This is just another example of over-taxing. The rich should have to pay just as much tax percentagewise as everyone else (flat tax). I've even cooled to the idea of them paying a wee bit more. However this is just fleecing.

[classicman2]

I don't believe that the rich are over-taxed.

When was the last time the top income tax rate was this low?

I won't comment on the ridiculous idea of a flat tax.

[JasonF]

Over-taxing the rich is punishing the rich. This is just another example of over-taxing. The rich should have to pay just as much tax percentagewise as everyone else (flat tax). I've even cooled to the idea of them paying a wee bit more. However this is just fleecing.

A flat tax soaks the poor (if you don't have an income floor below which no tax is paid) and/or the middle class (whether or not you have an income floor).

Some people believe treating everyone identically, regardless of their circumstances, is fair. This is, to borrow classicman's word, hogwash.

[island007]

Some people will never understand or want to switch to a flat tax system.

I'm ok with that.

I just want to get enough leaders and/or people in power to want it.

I hate the progressive tax structure we currently have in place, but I follow the exact letter of the statutes to pay the exact minimum required.

If we ever do get a more equitable tax system (Flat Tax), then I'll be even happier. Until then I'll do everything I can to ensure I have the lowest tax liability.

[Ranger]

Over-taxing the rich is punishing the rich.Frankly, I believe it's the poor and the middle class who are being over-taxed.

Blah, I'm starting to sound like a Democrat.

[General Zod]

We've had flat-tax discussions before on here where I pointed out that there are gov't programs that are subsidized by the rich to help the poor as it is, and even moving to a flat tax still isn't going to really be "fair" but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Anyhow, this is about the estate tax. This is just an extra robin hood tax.

Overall I just want to see the tax burden lowered for everyone. Was at like 10% at the begging of the 1900's and now it's like 40%. God forbid the gov't may actually have to cut some waste if they don't have the rich to unfairly grab money from.

[Ranger]

In a flat tax system, the rich would be paying into the social security tax like everyone else.

[kvrdave]

If the Repubs were really interested in protecting the folks they proclaim they want to protect from the estate tax - it could have been accomplished years ago.

It's strange that they vote against alternatives that would protect those people. No, it's not really strange. It's understandable and predictable GOP behavior.

If the Democrats were really interested in making the rich pay their fair share, they would push for a wealth tax. The Democrats talk a good game and generally want to get the "rich" that are not Uber Rich, but they have no intention of going after their own...the Uber rich.

[classicman2]

If the Democrats were really interested in making the rich pay their fair share, they would push for a wealth tax. The Democrats talk a good game and generally want to get the "rich" that are not Uber Rich, but they have no intention of going after their own...the Uber rich.

I assume you agree with me that concerning the estate tax - the super rich are the ones that the Repubs are protecting.

[classicman2]

A flat tax soaks the poor (if you don't have an income floor below which no tax is paid) and/or the middle class (whether or not you have an income floor).

Some people believe treating everyone identically, regardless of their circumstances, is fair. This is, to borrow classicman's word, hogwash.

The middle class would rise up in arms if they realized how Dick Armey's (or other flat tax proposals) would affect them.

[kvrdave]

I assume you agree with me that concerning the estate tax - the super rich are the ones that the Repubs are protecting.

I would agree, unless you are putting super rich in a category that is below Uber rich. I think the Democrats tend to classify super rich as those who actually work for a living (rather than live off the interest) and make more than $500,000 per year.

Have any of the Democrats plans amounted to something that would take money away from the Kerrys when they die?

Would you agree that the Democrats refuse to touch the Uber Rich? What have they done about trusts?

[classicman2]

Only the very very rich would be affected by the estate tax if the Repubs would agree to the Democratic alternatives which would protect the smaller estates - farmers, small businesses, etc.

Since they don't/won't agree, the only conclusion that a reasoned person can come to is that they are only interested in protecting the estates of the very rich - like the Kerry's.

[CRM114]

Overall I just want to see the tax burden lowered for everyone. Was at like 10% at the begging of the 1900's and now it's like 40%. God forbid the gov't may actually have to cut some waste if they don't have the rich to unfairly grab money from.

Can we start with the $400 Pentagon budget? The good 'ol boys up here in PA can defend themselves. ;)

[mosquitobite]

Frankly, I believe it's the poor and the middle class who are being over-taxed.

Blah, I'm starting to sound like a Democrat.

First, not the poor. Possibly the middle class, yes, but not the poor. My brother's X made $9,000 in 2002. She has 2 kids. She PAID in withholdings less than $1000. She got BACK on her tax return $3,458.

You tell me how she PAID too much. :hscratch:
And that was with both fathers having joint custody & paying child support (tax free). She was capable of earning more, but worked *just* enough to stay on government support.

Second point, from your other posts (not just here) on DVD Talk I thought you were! :lol:

[sracer]

First, not the poor. Possibly the middle class, yes, but not the poor. My brother's X made $9,000 in 2002. She has 2 kids. She PAID in withholdings less than $1000. She got BACK on her tax return $3,458.

You tell me how she PAID too much. :hscratch:
Right you are... because we all know that this single anecdotal situation holds true for everyone in that tax bracket. :rolleyes:

In rebuttal, I could present a person who made millions of dollars and yet paid NO income tax. So can I use that to prove that the rich pay no taxes?!

We gotta stop this class warfare nonsense and look at what the purposes of an income tax should be and what is a fair method for distributing the burden.

[island007]

It is the EIC (Earned Income Credit) basically a different way to redistribute wealth from the earner to the needy.

[mosquitobite]

We gotta stop this class warfare nonsense and look at what the purposes of an income tax should be and what is a fair method for distributing the burden.

Exactly. Know where it is already clearly established?

The Constitution

And if further clarification is needed, the Federalist papers.

[grundle]

Your post reminds me of the people I went to school with who highlighted 3/4 of their books. ;)
Yes. I know. But, it's a pretty short article, with a lot of good points.

[grundle]

In 1997, the estates of fewer than 43,000 people — fewer than 1.9 percent of the 2.3 million people who died that year — had to pay any estate tax.
Getting rid of the estate tax would have a direct effect on about the same percentage of the population as would getting rid of the ban on gay marriage. Since you want to keep the estate tax because of this low percentage, does this mean that you also want to keep the ban on gay marriage?

(For the record, I want to eliminate the estate tax and the ban on gay marriage.)

[Ranger]

First, not the poor. Possibly the middle class, yes, but not the poor. My brother's X made $9,000 in 2002. She has 2 kids. She PAID in withholdings less than $1000. She got BACK on her tax return $3,458.

You tell me how she PAID too much. :hscratch:
And that was with both fathers having joint custody & paying child support (tax free). She was capable of earning more, but worked *just* enough to stay on government support.
Yeah, but that person has kids, which makes it easier to claim certain benefits. There's the extreme poor, which gets most of the benefits, but there's also the working poor, below the middle class, who have tax burdens.
Second point, from your other posts (not just here) on DVD Talk I thought you were! :lol:
That coming from you, I won't lose much sleep over that. :lol:

I would think that I have a good history of bashing liberals on a variety of issues, but I also bash conservatives from time to time because I think some of them go overboard in defending the rich, spending wastefully on the military, and showing lack of responsibility in managing the budget. And I don't think I have ever voted for a Democrat but I'm still young. ;)

[That70sGuy]

The estate tax should be 100% for anything over 1 million dollars. The estate tax should be 0% for anything under $500,000. Tax the middle at 50%. Problem solved.

The rich could not stay rich by living off interest and what their fathers did.

Plus, it would stop people like Ted Turner from buying millions of acres of land.

And while we are at it, don't uber rich kids get enough freebies that everyone else has to pay for? Their daddies pay for the best schools, the best cars, they live in huge mansions, they have everything they ever wanted. The poor must work for every penny they get. That ain't fair. Birth is like a lottery. It should not matter who gives birth to a child, all children should have the same oppertunities.

And a 100% estate tax would break the chokehold that a few american families have in politics and power.

[classicman2]

Getting rid of the estate tax would have a direct effect on about the same percentage of the population as would getting rid of the ban on gay marriage. Since you want to keep the estate tax because of this low percentage, does this mean that you also want to keep the ban on gay marriage?

(For the record, I want to eliminate the estate tax and the ban on gay marriage.)

One (gay marriage) is probably a constitutional question - Equal Protection Clause of the XIV Amendment.

The other clearly is not.

Let's not insult the intelligence of the forum by a lame attempt to make a comparison. ;)

[JasonF]

Getting rid of the estate tax would have a direct effect on about the same percentage of the population as would getting rid of the ban on gay marriage. Since you want to keep the estate tax because of this low percentage, does this mean that you also want to keep the ban on gay marriage?

(For the record, I want to eliminate the estate tax and the ban on gay marriage.)

1) You're barking up the wrong tree if you expect classicman to come out against the ban on gay marriage. He's socially conservative, and while I don't recall him participating in any gay marriage debates, I'd lay odds that he is opposed to a Constitutional interpretation mandating gay marriage. I, on the other hand, think that gay marriage should be as legal as straight marriage, and that we should retain the estate tax because ...

2) The estate tax does affect me, even though I don't anticipate being heir to any estate subject to the tax. This is because if the government loses $1 in revenue from the estate tax, it has to either cut $1 in expenditures or raise $1 in new taxes. As both a recipient of government services and a potential taxpayer (just like everyone else), I am affected by a repeal of the estate tax.

And that's leaving aside the secondary effects, such as what a repeal of the estate tax would do to charitable contributions.

Edit: While I was making my post, classicman weighed in ... without revealing his position on gay marriage! Foiled again!

[X]

Let's not insult the intelligence of the forum by a lame attempt to make a comparison. ;)I think he was, as was I previously, commenting on the rationale presented in your posts saying that it's justified because it only affects a relatively small number of people. And any party trying to protect the rights of that minority is in their pocket and evil.

[classicman2]

1) You're barking up the wrong tree if you expect classicman to come out against the ban on gay marriage. He's socially conservative, and while I don't recall him participating in any gay marriage debates, I'd lay odds that he is opposed to a Constitutional interpretation mandating gay marriage. I, on the other hand, think that gay marriage should be as legal as straight marriage, and that we should retain the estate tax because ...


Edit: While I was making my post, classicman weighed in ... without revealing his position on gay marriage! Foiled again!

Gay marriage is not a burning issue for me.

I am basically a social conservative, but I don't believe it really affects the insitution of marriage all that much. Therefore, I'm not an opponent of it as such. I believe it should be left up to the individual states, but I see the constitutional problem that would arise from that. I'm reasonably certain the SC will hold that it would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause for a state to ban gay marriages - considering the broad interpretation of that clause the court has given over the past years. It's sort of like the Commerce Clause that our friend, Red Dog, rails against. ;)

[kvrdave]

First, not the poor. Possibly the middle class, yes, but not the poor. My brother's X made $9,000 in 2002. She has 2 kids. She PAID in withholdings less than $1000. She got BACK on her tax return $3,458.

You tell me how she PAID too much. :hscratch:
And that was with both fathers having joint custody & paying child support (tax free). She was capable of earning more, but worked *just* enough to stay on government support.


Can't hardly blame her. I personally use every legal loophole and tax law to my advantage, and I assume most others do as well. I am not a fan of hte tax credit given for having children, but I sure use it. :lol:

[classicman2]

That's the way with you Repubs. You rail against something, but you're the first to swill at the trough. :)

[X]

That's the way with you Repubs. You rail against something, but you're the first to swill at the trough. :)We really were trying to reduce these types of blanket statements. Your cooperation would help a lot.

[CRM114]

1) You're barking up the wrong tree if you expect classicman to come out against the ban on gay marriage. He's socially conservative, and while I don't recall him participating in any gay marriage debates, I'd lay odds that he is opposed to a Constitutional interpretation mandating gay marriage. I, on the other hand, think that gay marriage should be as legal as straight marriage, and that we should retain the estate tax because ...

2) The estate tax does affect me, even though I don't anticipate being heir to any estate subject to the tax. This is because if the government loses $1 in revenue from the estate tax, it has to either cut $1 in expenditures or raise $1 in new taxes. As both a recipient of government services and a potential taxpayer (just like everyone else), I am affected by a repeal of the estate tax.

And that's leaving aside the secondary effects, such as what a repeal of the estate tax would do to charitable contributions.

Edit: While I was making my post, classicman weighed in ... without revealing his position on gay marriage! Foiled again!

Good post. Its fascinating to see normal folks like you and me buy into the idea that repealing the estate tax benefits would benefit them in some way. Sure, its fairness but please lets not fool ourselves into thinking that any of us will ever be in that class of people - the uber rich. Odds are that we won't ever achieve that status. Screw 'em.

[CRM114]

I think he was, as was I previously, commenting on the rationale presented in your posts saying that it's justified because it only affects a relatively small number of people. And any party trying to protect the rights of that minority is in their pocket and evil.

:lol: What else does it mean? That they are just "looking after the big guy?"

[Red Dog]

Screw 'em (meaning the minority)! Where have I heard that one before? :lol:

[classicman2]

We really were trying to reduce these types of blanket statements. Your cooperation would help a lot.

Well you cease making blanket generalizations about Democrats?

[X]

Well you cease making blanket generalizations about Democrats?How about going on a fact-finding mission and find some blanket statements from me that obnoxiously slur members of this forum due to their party affiliation?

Like...That's the way with you Repubs. You rail against something, but you're the first to swill at the trough.

[slappypete]

I think eliminating the estate tax is fine, just have the people who are left money declare it as income during that tax year. There is no reason that money that is inherited should be treated any differently than money that is earned.

[movielib]

The estate tax should be 100% for anything over 1 million dollars. The estate tax should be 0% for anything under $500,000. Tax the middle at 50%. Problem solved.
Thank you for ending virtually all incentive. That will have great consequences.

The rich could not stay rich by living off interest and what their fathers did.
It has nothing to do with what the kids inherit. It has everything to do with the right of those who earn it to dispose of it as they please.

Plus, it would stop people like Ted Turner from buying millions of acres of land.
:hscratch:

And while we are at it, don't uber rich kids get enough freebies that everyone else has to pay for? Their daddies pay for the best schools, the best cars, they live in huge mansions, they have everything they ever wanted. The poor must work for every penny they get. That ain't fair. Birth is like a lottery. It should not matter who gives birth to a child, all children should have the same oppertunities.
See two answers above. And who says life must be "fair"?

And a 100% estate tax would break the chokehold that a few american families have in politics and power.
Or we could possibly limit government to its only legitimate jobs: protecting us and enforcing the rights of individuals. Not to mention that your 100% estate tax would destroy virtually all incentive and render almost all of us more or less equally impoverished.

[Duder]

The estate tax should be 100% for anything over 1 million dollars. The estate tax should be 0% for anything under $500,000. Tax the middle at 50%. Problem solved.

The rich could not stay rich by living off interest and what their fathers did.

Plus, it would stop people like Ted Turner from buying millions of acres of land.

Just... wow. -ohbfrank-

[That70sGuy]

:hscratch:
And who says life must be "fair"?



You are right. Life should not be fair. That is why people strap bombs on and blow up the innocent. Tell the families of the innocent victems that life is not fair.

What price is a child worth to you? To a rich man, he is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, on private schools, on tutors, on the best of everything for his child. Why should a poor child be stuck with nothing?

[That70sGuy]

It has nothing to do with what the kids inherit. It has everything to do with the right of those who earn it to dispose of it as they please.

Even if that spending creates an unfair field of competition? It is like rigging a game. Is it really a competition if two people have a car race, and one has $1,000,000 to spend on his car and crew, and the other has $1,000? It does not take a genius to figure out who will win.

[island007]

The spending doesn't create the 'unfair' field of competition.
The playing field is equitable.

Ask the poor child's parents?
First you write about teachers making over 100 k and now you write this garbage.

The only support you offer for it is some appeal to emotion.

[grundle]

The estate tax does affect me, even though I don't anticipate being heir to any estate subject to the tax. This is because if the government loses $1 in revenue from the estate tax, it has to either cut $1 in expenditures or raise $1 in new taxes. As both a recipient of government services and a potential taxpayer (just like everyone else), I am affected by a repeal of the estate tax.
So does that mean that you are happy with how the Bush adminiistration is spending your tax dollars, such as on the Iraq War, enforcement of the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, airline bailouts, corproate welfare, the war on drugs, etc.? Are you happy with these programs?

Furthermore, some people have said that the estate tax costs several dollars in lost productivity for every dollar that the tax collects. The tax forces people to spend tens of billions of dollars on lawyers and accoutnants every year to try to avoid paying the tax. In addition, the tax causes capital to be misallocated into inefficient uses in order to try to avoid paying the tax.


And that's leaving aside the secondary effects, such as what a repeal of the estate tax would do to charitable contributions.
Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, etc., all gave huge amounts of money to charity before the estate tax ever existed. How do you explain that?

[grundle]

The estate tax should be 100% for anything over 1 million dollars.
If that was to happen, then instead of saving, investing, planning for the future, etc., people would switch over to spending, consuming, etc.

There would be no investment, no creation or expansion of business, no job creation, etc.

The U.S. would turn into a third world country.

[CRM114]

Screw 'em (meaning the minority)! Where have I heard that one before? :lol:

You're right. We should be more compassionate to our fellow billionaires. Its a hard-knock life being the overwhelming minority. Maybe I'll start a caviar drive to show my appreciation for their support of the huddled masses.

[classicman2]

There would be no investment, no creation or expansion of business, no job creation, etc.

You don't really believe that, do you?

[CRM114]

Or we could possibly limit government to its only legitimate jobs: protecting us and enforcing the rights of individuals. Not to mention that your 100% estate tax would destroy virtually all incentive and render almost all of us more or less equally impoverished.

Could I wear a powdered wig and pretend its 1787 too? Hey, it would mean the comeback of snuff. ;)

[classicman2]

The problem with some on this forum is that they've read too much of Ayn Rand's crap. They've come to take her seriouslyl.

[JasonF]

So does that mean that you are happy with how the Bush adminiistration is spending your tax dollars, such as on the Iraq War, enforcement of the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, airline bailouts, corproate welfare, the war on drugs, etc.? Are you happy with these programs?

Am I happy with some of them? Of course. Am I happy with all of them? Of course not. But I'm realistic to recognize that the ones I like, someone else will dislike, and vice versa. Talking about "cutting spending," "eliminating waste," and "getting rid of pork" are all fine phrases, but the devil is in the details.

Furthermore, some people have said that the estate tax costs several dollars in lost productivity for every dollar that the tax collects. The tax forces people to spend tens of billions of dollars on lawyers and accoutnants every year to try to avoid paying the tax. In addition, the tax causes capital to be misallocated into inefficient uses in order to try to avoid paying the tax.

You could say that about every tax. But we tried a government based on voluntary contributions to the treasury in the 1780s. It didn't work.


Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, etc., all gave huge amounts of money to charity before the estate tax ever existed. How do you explain that?

There was a federal estate tax in existence when all of those men died. We've had federal estate taxes intermitently since 1862 and constantly since 1916.

And I didn't make up the thing about the effect of the repeal of the estate tax on charitable giving. There are OMB studies.

[grundle]

You don't really believe that, do you?
No. I was exaggerating. But you know what I meant. Those things would not cease to exist. But they would be majorly reduced.

[Red Dog]

The problem with some on this forum is that they've read too much of Ayn Rand's crap. They've come to take her seriouslyl.


I've never read a page of her work. :p

[classicman2]

She was a pretty good writer of fiction.

Some of the forum seem to have difficulty in distinguishing what is fiction. ;)

[Red Dog]

She was a pretty good writer of fiction.

Some of the forum seem to have difficulty in distinguishing what is fiction. ;)


I don't know. The politicos have a lot of practice reading fiction in here. You post quite a bit. ;)

[CRM114]

Rand didn't think it was fiction. She wrote fictional pieces based on her own philosophy which is very similar to some of our libertarian memebers. For example, Rand says "collectivists" and Red Dog says "carbon blobs." :lol:

[classicman2]

BTW: What is a 'memeber?' :lol:

[CRM114]

BTW: What is a 'memeber?' :lol:

Have we stooped to busting on TYPOS now? -rolleyes-

[VinVega]

Have we stooped to busting on TYPOS now? -rolleyes-
That's what happens when you've lost the arguement. As a carbon blob, I was rooting for c-man too. :(

[kvrdave]

That's the way with you Repubs. You rail against something, but you're the first to swill at the trough. :)

:lol:

It seems like someone here (someone old.....one might say "classic") has talked a fair amount about the welfare of the home mortgage interest deduction, and how he took it anyway when he was a lad.

[kvrdave]

You're right. We should be more compassionate to our fellow billionaires. Its a hard-knock life being the overwhelming minority. Maybe I'll start a caviar drive to show my appreciation for their support of the huddled masses.


The Kerry family sends its thanks.

[classicman2]

I haven't railed against it. I've merely told the truth. It's welfare, basically for the middle-class.

I believe in calling a spade a spade. ;)

[kvrdave]

I don''t believe I have railed against the EICC either. It's welfare for me. :)