5 ms·

when you die wealthy, you have to pay your dues to the society which made accumulation (or maintenance) of wealth possible. They did pay their dues as defined

when you die wealthy, you have to pay your dues to the society which made accumulation (or maintenance) of wealth possible. They did pay their dues as defined by the tax code in place at the time of their deaths.

Retric 16y ago
Semantically, if they paid nothing because they were not required to pay anything, then I don't think you can say they "paid their dues".
cullenking 16y ago
And the tax code that, you know, taxed them while they were alive. It's not like their net worth is pre-tax, and if it was pre-tax, that it would stay that way when capital gains tax hits when an heir sells property, etc.
- Retric 16y ago
  No, if the appreciated asset was pre-tax, at their death, then their heir's get to immediately sell it without paying capital gains. If you do not have to file a federal estate tax return, then your basis in the inherited property is its appraised value on the date of passing for state inheritance or transmission taxes. Otherwise the property inherited from a descendent usually has its value or basis determined in one of the following four ways: The appraised fair market value as of the date of passing. The fair market value on the alternate valuation date if a personal representative of the estate chooses to use alternate valuation. A special-use valuation method for real property used in farming or a closely held business if chosen for estate tax purposes. When the land that is part of the decedent's estate is a qualified conservation easement, then it may qualify for an adjusted cost basis. http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/Tax-Shelter/Capital-Gains-Tax/ PS: This loophole still exists for the untaxed portion of an inheritance.
jbooth 16y ago
This isn't a question of "should we collect this tax or not" in isolation. Any tax in isolation would be nice not to have. The question is, given a need to raise revenue, does it make more sense to tax large inheritances after the first few million, or to abolish that tax and correspondingly raise taxes on someone else. Deficits are just deferred taxes. (and if you say cut spending -- fine, different discussion. Once we balance the budget we can debate which taxes to cut.)
- TGJ 16y ago
  "Deficits are just deferred taxes." That has to be one of the most depressing things that I have read this week. The logical leap off a cliff surprises me. To think that someone simply believes that government deficits are simply because the government hasn't collected enough taxes is enough to sign up for Prozac.
  - andreyf 16y ago
    http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Deficits are money that the government owes. Which will have to be paid. Where do you think the money will come from to pay those debts?
    - TGJ 16y ago
      It was more the boiling down of the argument, then limiting the responses with the statement, we can talk about cutting spending in another discussion that I found trouble with. Since there are only two options for governments to take care of deficits, cutting spending or taxing more, assuming that you simply have not spent money that you never had, when you limited the argument by not allowing cutting spending as a response, I was troubled with the implication that taxes would have to be raised. And frankly, I don't think there is much room for conversation with someone that feels raising taxes is an acceptable solution.

Retric 16y ago

Semantically, if they paid nothing because they were not required to pay anything, then I don't think you can say they "paid their dues".

cullenking 16y ago

And the tax code that, you know, taxed them while they were alive. It's not like their net worth is pre-tax, and if it was pre-tax, that it would stay that way when capital gains tax hits when an heir sells property, etc.

Retric 16y ago
No, if the appreciated asset was pre-tax, at their death, then their heir's get to immediately sell it without paying capital gains. If you do not have to file a federal estate tax return, then your basis in the inherited property is its appraised value on the date of passing for state inheritance or transmission taxes. Otherwise the property inherited from a descendent usually has its value or basis determined in one of the following four ways: The appraised fair market value as of the date of passing. The fair market value on the alternate valuation date if a personal representative of the estate chooses to use alternate valuation. A special-use valuation method for real property used in farming or a closely held business if chosen for estate tax purposes. When the land that is part of the decedent's estate is a qualified conservation easement, then it may qualify for an adjusted cost basis. http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/Tax-Shelter/Capital-Gains-Tax/ PS: This loophole still exists for the untaxed portion of an inheritance.

jbooth 16y ago

This isn't a question of "should we collect this tax or not" in isolation. Any tax in isolation would be nice not to have. The question is, given a need to raise revenue, does it make more sense to tax large inheritances after the first few million, or to abolish that tax and correspondingly raise taxes on someone else. Deficits are just deferred taxes. (and if you say cut spending -- fine, different discussion. Once we balance the budget we can debate which taxes to cut.)

TGJ 16y ago
"Deficits are just deferred taxes." That has to be one of the most depressing things that I have read this week. The logical leap off a cliff surprises me. To think that someone simply believes that government deficits are simply because the government hasn't collected enough taxes is enough to sign up for Prozac.
- andreyf 16y ago
  http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- jbooth 16y ago
  Deficits are money that the government owes. Which will have to be paid. Where do you think the money will come from to pay those debts?
  - TGJ 16y ago
    It was more the boiling down of the argument, then limiting the responses with the statement, we can talk about cutting spending in another discussion that I found trouble with. Since there are only two options for governments to take care of deficits, cutting spending or taxing more, assuming that you simply have not spent money that you never had, when you limited the argument by not allowing cutting spending as a response, I was troubled with the implication that taxes would have to be raised. And frankly, I don't think there is much room for conversation with someone that feels raising taxes is an acceptable solution.