KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Government already got its "share" with the first round of taxation... There you go again, with the same BS argument. You work all your life and save your paychecks and amass well over $4 million and therefore your heirs pay an estate tax? Estate tax is overwhelmingly applied to long term capital gains. Furthermore, Gary's argument about double taxation applies: property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, etc. may all be argued to be double taxation. and there YOU go again. we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement. deal with it. grow up for once and acknowledge that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 WTF? Have I failed to acknowledge that we have philosophical differences? About the "death tax" label: if it is the time that these taxes are triggered that causes you concern (it is not necessarily when they are collected), how about we eliminate the step up in basis for capital gains? Then the tax would only be triggered when the asset is sold for monetary distribution or reinvestment by the heirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted March 4, 2008 Author Share Posted March 4, 2008 So KK, I think you missed half my argument from before. Instead of paying say 30% income tax per year (I'm grossly simplifying), what if you instead could opt to pay 15% income tax per year plus 50% of your estate (to account for interest accrued and income spent on transient items/services)? Or on the contrary, what do you think of a tax bracket of say 50% for the portions of annual incomes exceeding ten million dollars? Feel free to fudge some of the numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 he doesn't like it because of the impact it would have on his next paycheck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 is this really a playground argument over the word "fair?" since when were taxes ever really fair? thugs w/ clubs have been extorting money from the masses since time immemorial - it's just the way the show works. the idea of leashing the thugs ever so slightly w/ the collar of elections was a good one, though it didn't take into account the success political parties that favored the affluent would have in convincing poor folks to vote against their interests in exchange for a promise that boys wouldn't be allowed to kiss each other. the bottomline is the bills need to get paid, and if that means the rich guys have to settle for only having a single private jet, i can't find in my heart to feel so bad. maybe if 50% of our budget wasn't going to the department of war we could have lower income taxes and no estate tax, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 We've covered this before. I think the estate tax as double (or triple) taxation and, as such, completely unfair Yes, we've covered this before. The threshold for estate taxes is $2 million, and $4 million for a couple. In the vast majority of cases this is a capital gains tax on growth that has not been taxed. How many people save their paychecks and build up a $4 million estate? If your suggesting that the estate tax be capped at the lt cap gains rate (15%) and the stepped up cost basis be kept, then that's a bit more reasonable than the current system. Oh, hey. Found this cool chart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 If your suggesting that the estate tax be capped at the lt cap gains rate (15%) and the stepped up cost basis be kept, then that's a bit more reasonable than the current system. I make no such suggestion. I don't think the present 15% for capital gains is "fair." I'm not sure what it should be, but that is too low when you compare it to income tax rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 maybe if 50% of our budget wasn't going to the department of war we could have lower income taxes and no estate tax, eh? it's better than 100% of our budget being stolen by terrorists when they take over because you wouldn't fund the war department. baa baa baa baa baa baa baa baa baa baa was that the right answer, good shepherd Bush? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 our glorious 2nd amendment certainly will keep the evil-doers at bay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 word to yo fo'father Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I make no such suggestion. I don't think the present 15% for capital gains is "fair." I'm not sure what it should be, but that is too low when you compare it to income tax rates. It's not out of line with the rest of the world, though. Also capital gains can be taxed at the marginal income rates. All distributions from Trad IRA's are taxed as income, whether the money is due to contributions, dividends, or cap gains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I have no idea how our capital gains tax or for that matter our tax structure in general really compares with the rest of the world. Doesn't everybody take it for granted that the Euro's pay way more tax than we do? Is it all income tax? I believe I read not long ago that most or maybe even nearly all countries have estate taxes, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Yes, we've covered this before. The threshold for estate taxes is $2 million, and $4 million for a couple. In the vast majority of cases this is a capital gains tax on growth that has not been taxed. How many people save their paychecks and build up a $4 million estate? On Jan 1, 2011 the exemption drops back down to $1 million. A paid off three bedroom house in Ballard and $600k in an IRA (which represents $24k in yearly income) puts you at the threshold. If you have to pay taxes using proceeds from the IRA, the withdrawl will also be taxed at your marginal rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 You forgot to mention that the threshold is going up and for one year will be eliminated before it reverts to $1 million, and that the $1 million is actually $2 million for a married couple with a minimal amount of estate planning. But, in any case, I don't think the threshold is likely to remain at $1 million after that. Congress will raise it substantially - with bipartisan support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted March 5, 2008 Author Share Posted March 5, 2008 KK and others, What if there were a law that estates worth more than $100mil were taxed by 75%? would you be for or against? certainly you wouldn't be directly affected by it. from the selfish point of view, wouldn't it be better to tax not you, rather than to tax you? i guess what i don't understand is if you have a fundamental moral objection to the estate tax or rather an objection to such a tax when it affects you. do you see any difference between a higher income tax vs. a lower income tax plus an estate tax? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 KK and others, What if there were a law that estates worth more than $100mil were taxed by 75%? would you be for or against? certainly you wouldn't be directly affected by it. from the selfish point of view, wouldn't it be better to tax not you, rather than to tax you? i guess what i don't understand is if you have a fundamental moral objection to the estate tax or rather an objection to such a tax when it affects you. do you see any difference between a higher income tax vs. a lower income tax plus an estate tax? Of course I'm opposed to it - even if I never have a chance in hell of being that rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted March 5, 2008 Author Share Posted March 5, 2008 Of course I'm opposed to it - even if I never have a chance in hell of being that rich. i listed a few options, so i'll assume all of them are it. why? what do you need your estate for once you're dead? don't you think your kids should earn their own incomes rather than be deadbeats like paris hilton? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 don't you think your kids should earn their own incomes rather than be deadbeats like paris hilton? According to Forbes, Paris earned $6.5 million in '05 and $7 million in '06. The celebutante has amassed her personal fortune mainly through licensing deals. Her name is attached to a perfume, watches, nightclubs and a new videogame. She's also a reality TV fixture, B-list movie starlet and bestselling author. Call them her day jobs; at night Paris gets paid big bucks to show her face at of-the-minute clubs, commanding up to $300,000 per appearance abroad. She boasts the most Web hits of anyone else on the Forbes Celebrity 100, although she's also the only lister with her own highly publicized (and downloadable) porn tape. So, she's probably earned more money at this point than you will in your lifetime. Who's the deadbeat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 don't you think your kids should earn their own incomes rather than be deadbeats like paris hilton? According to Forbes, Paris earned $6.5 million in '05 and $7 million in '06. The celebutante has amassed her personal fortune mainly through licensing deals. Her name is attached to a perfume, watches, nightclubs and a new videogame. She's also a reality TV fixture, B-list movie starlet and bestselling author. Call them her day jobs; at night Paris gets paid big bucks to show her face at of-the-minute clubs, commanding up to $300,000 per appearance abroad. She boasts the most Web hits of anyone else on the Forbes Celebrity 100, although she's also the only lister with her own highly publicized (and downloadable) porn tape. So, she's probably earned more money at this point than you will in your lifetime. Who's the deadbeat? What a crock of poo. So you are trying to tell us that the fact that she was galavanting around with movie stars, spending millions of her daddies $ on dresses, cars, boys, parties, and jumping i front of every camera with a "Hilton" sign on her, is personal fortitude? Get a clue. If she didn't start out with the name and the free millions, she would be a nobody with a list of sad addictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 ONcsXbRqV8U Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 According to Forbes, Paris earned $6.5 million in '05 and $7 million in '06. The celebutante has amassed her personal fortune mainly through licensing deals. Her name is attached to a perfume, watches, nightclubs and a new videogame. She's also a reality TV fixture, B-list movie starlet and bestselling author. Call them her day jobs; at night Paris gets paid big bucks to show her face at of-the-minute clubs, commanding up to $300,000 per appearance abroad. She boasts the most Web hits of anyone else on the Forbes Celebrity 100, although she's also the only lister with her own highly publicized (and downloadable) porn tape. So, she's probably earned more money at this point than you will in your lifetime. Who's the deadbeat? What a crock of poo. So you are trying to tell us that the fact that she was galavanting around with movie stars, spending millions of her daddies $ on dresses, cars, boys, parties, and jumping i front of every camera with a "Hilton" sign on her, is personal fortitude? No. What I'm saying is that she is generating quite the revenue stream and doesn't necessarily have to live off her parent's inheritance in the future. Some kids live off their parents money while going to college to finally start earning $50k/yr. She took a little different path. I don't see much difference in her than the guys who get paid millons each summer to run around on grass in their pajamas chasing a little white ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Yeah. They work a lot harder and are probably smarter. But I still agree that they are overpaid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted March 7, 2008 Author Share Posted March 7, 2008 I don't believe it's the government's job to fund health care. What about not overall healthcare, but just healthcare for kids? (and not force people onto the govt plan if they have another plan) The deal w/ kids is it's not their choice whether to get healthcare. My theory is a kid who is denied an education due to health problems will be a further burden to society later. Give a kid healthcare, or pay for him to rot in prison as an adult? Or do you have another way to encourage responsibility of the parents in only creating kids they can care for? I agree with you though that blanket welfare programs are bad news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 I don't believe it's the government's job to fund health care. What about not overall healthcare, but just healthcare for kids? (and not force people onto the govt plan if they have another plan) The deal w/ kids is it's not their choice whether to get healthcare. My theory is a kid who is denied an education due to health problems will be a further burden to society later. Give a kid healthcare, or pay for him to rot in prison as an adult? Or do you have another way to encourage responsibility of the parents in only creating kids they can care for? I agree with you though that blanket welfare programs are bad news. One word: Medicare. We already have such a system. Why is it acceptable to most people (or would KKK prefer that we deny seniors health care by eliminating Medicare?) have single payer healthcare for old folks but not for kids? Is 65 some magic age where socialism suddenly becomes OK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.