3 ms·

Who does estate tax punish?

by FDSGSG 6y ago

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
The children of the people who managed to live out their days without going broke and becoming a burden on everyone else have less money than if their parents spent it all (presumably some of which would have been on them) and died with debt. The people who lived out their days without going broke lose because their property rights are being violated. Their property and their dollars that they have already paid taxes on should be theirs to give away as they see fit.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  Not being entitled to something no one else is entitled to either is not a punishment, otherwise it's a punishment to me when I can't have your dad's money. Children aren't even entitled to their parents money in adulthood. Parents have to choose to give it to them either explicitly or by omission.
- eesmith 6y ago
  If that's punishment for the children of the rich, then those children born to parents who are broke must also live a punished life, yes? If you are against children being punished because of the economics of their parents, then surely you are in support for a strong social safety network for children (universal subsidized/free childcare, including meals, and healthcare), yes? Which requires taxation or other funding sources. Which means we must ponder things like: how much of Sam Walton's $100 million inheritance did his children need in order to not be punished by a higher inheritance tax? $5 million each?
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    The rich will still be rich. They'll come up with complex workarounds. They'll impart the money on their kids while they're still alive. The people who will be screwed are the middle class people who's only (if any) windfall in life is inheriting part of their parents house and using that to pay off their own mortgage or send their kids to college or whatever (and who's kids will likely inherit a share of the house and continue the cycle).
    - eesmith 6y ago
      It seems you are making an argument from apathy - since there's nothing we can do about the rich, we shouldn't do anything? Because we can certainly reduce the number of complex workarounds - which were deliberately introduced to allow the rich to have those workarounds. We can increase the taxation rate for the highest tax bracket, like the 90% it once was. And we can increase the estate tax. The current federal estate tax has an exemption of $5 million. Just how many middle class families do you think would be unable to send their kids to college if the estate tax rate after the first $5 million was increased? For that matter, how many middle class families would be unable to send their kids to college of the exemption were lowered to $2 million? Because $2 million seems like a lot to me. Poorer people will receive no windfall in life. Since you want people to have windfall ... how do you want to support poor people? How should the children of the poor go to college or whatever? Because otherwise what you write sounds like a standard wedge argument - get the middle class to fear for losing what little they have, in order so the rich benefit even more, while the poor get left out. Higher pay via stronger union rights (repeal Taft-Hartley now!), universal college education. These help give your desired economic windfall for the middle class and my desired windfall for the less well off. The rich and the children of the rich will still be rich.
    - vel0city 6y ago
      The US currently exempts $11.5 million per person for estate taxes (IANAL). A family inheriting their parent's estate does not pay taxes on the first $23 million dollars worth of assets. Even then, taxes only apply on amounts greater than that exemption amount, so to have an estate tax take a significant amount of your estate income would require way more than $23 million. With your example its hard to claim the family is "middle class" when they're already homeowners and are inheriting well more than $23 million.
- adamsea 6y ago
  Who is a burden on everyone else, and how? I thought the whole point of ... civilization was for people to support each other.
ChrisLomont 6y ago
The parent poster stated that people breaking laws is argument for high estate tax. Is this not chosen as a form of punishment? If it had zero punishment effect, why do it? If taking money away was not a form of punishment, why is it used as punishment in so many court cases? It punishes those who would have had the assets otherwise. Especially when the stated reason is to punish them.
- charlesu 6y ago
  I didn’t say it was a punishment. I said it was a good argument. There’s no legal method of getting back ill-gotten gains from someone who’s dead. But if you can’t pass along your estate, it doesn’t matter. For the record, I don’t think the state taking away most (or all) of a person's estate after they’ve died is a punishment at all.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Is this not chosen as a form of punishment? It's only punishment if you think there is a natural right to control the disposition of property after death. Otherwise, it's just a argument as to why a purely optional benefit not grounded in rights should not be extended by the state. Not extending a benefit to which there is no entitlement is not inherently a punishment.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    So the state should seize mom and pop shops when mom and pop dies? Then what? Try to sell it? Have it as state run enterprises? Now every generation must completely pull themselves up from zero, and the state seizing all value every time someone dies? Parents die accidentally - too bad for kids, the state seized all value and sent the kids into some state system. Countries that seize this much property don’t do too well economically.
    - eesmith 6y ago
      When the owners of a husband and wife shop die, with no inheritors, then what? If the children of the mom and pop shop die, and the children are preschool aged, with no other inheritors or people designated to handle the estate, then what? Effectively no one says that "every generation must completely pull themselves up from zero". Do you seriously think the children of working/labor class families, living in rental housing, and with no capital, completely pull themselves up from zero? Since they don't, neither do the children you hypothesis. So what's the point of your argument other than to tug at our heartstrings about those orphans? Oh, and if the mom and pop shop is bankrupt, or has little capital, and there isn't family or close friends able and willing to take care of the kids, then who will? Oh, right, "some state system." So if you are so concerned about these children, perhaps we need better orphanages and better support for the foster system. Now, how do we fund those improvements?

Who does estate tax punish?

by FDSGSG 6y ago

Who does estate tax punish?

The children of the people who managed to live out their days without going broke and becoming a burden on everyone else have less money than if their parents spent it all (presumably some of which would have been on them) and died with debt. The people who lived out their days without going broke lose because their property rights are being violated. Their property and their dollars that they have already paid taxes on should be theirs to give away as they see fit.

pessimizer 6y ago
Not being entitled to something no one else is entitled to either is not a punishment, otherwise it's a punishment to me when I can't have your dad's money. Children aren't even entitled to their parents money in adulthood. Parents have to choose to give it to them either explicitly or by omission.
eesmith 6y ago
If that's punishment for the children of the rich, then those children born to parents who are broke must also live a punished life, yes? If you are against children being punished because of the economics of their parents, then surely you are in support for a strong social safety network for children (universal subsidized/free childcare, including meals, and healthcare), yes? Which requires taxation or other funding sources. Which means we must ponder things like: how much of Sam Walton's $100 million inheritance did his children need in order to not be punished by a higher inheritance tax? $5 million each?
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  The rich will still be rich. They'll come up with complex workarounds. They'll impart the money on their kids while they're still alive. The people who will be screwed are the middle class people who's only (if any) windfall in life is inheriting part of their parents house and using that to pay off their own mortgage or send their kids to college or whatever (and who's kids will likely inherit a share of the house and continue the cycle).
  - eesmith 6y ago
    It seems you are making an argument from apathy - since there's nothing we can do about the rich, we shouldn't do anything? Because we can certainly reduce the number of complex workarounds - which were deliberately introduced to allow the rich to have those workarounds. We can increase the taxation rate for the highest tax bracket, like the 90% it once was. And we can increase the estate tax. The current federal estate tax has an exemption of $5 million. Just how many middle class families do you think would be unable to send their kids to college if the estate tax rate after the first $5 million was increased? For that matter, how many middle class families would be unable to send their kids to college of the exemption were lowered to $2 million? Because $2 million seems like a lot to me. Poorer people will receive no windfall in life. Since you want people to have windfall ... how do you want to support poor people? How should the children of the poor go to college or whatever? Because otherwise what you write sounds like a standard wedge argument - get the middle class to fear for losing what little they have, in order so the rich benefit even more, while the poor get left out. Higher pay via stronger union rights (repeal Taft-Hartley now!), universal college education. These help give your desired economic windfall for the middle class and my desired windfall for the less well off. The rich and the children of the rich will still be rich.
  - vel0city 6y ago
    The US currently exempts $11.5 million per person for estate taxes (IANAL). A family inheriting their parent's estate does not pay taxes on the first $23 million dollars worth of assets. Even then, taxes only apply on amounts greater than that exemption amount, so to have an estate tax take a significant amount of your estate income would require way more than $23 million. With your example its hard to claim the family is "middle class" when they're already homeowners and are inheriting well more than $23 million.
adamsea 6y ago
Who is a burden on everyone else, and how? I thought the whole point of ... civilization was for people to support each other.

ChrisLomont 6y ago

The parent poster stated that people breaking laws is argument for high estate tax. Is this not chosen as a form of punishment? If it had zero punishment effect, why do it? If taking money away was not a form of punishment, why is it used as punishment in so many court cases? It punishes those who would have had the assets otherwise. Especially when the stated reason is to punish them.

charlesu 6y ago
I didn’t say it was a punishment. I said it was a good argument. There’s no legal method of getting back ill-gotten gains from someone who’s dead. But if you can’t pass along your estate, it doesn’t matter. For the record, I don’t think the state taking away most (or all) of a person's estate after they’ve died is a punishment at all.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Is this not chosen as a form of punishment? It's only punishment if you think there is a natural right to control the disposition of property after death. Otherwise, it's just a argument as to why a purely optional benefit not grounded in rights should not be extended by the state. Not extending a benefit to which there is no entitlement is not inherently a punishment.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  So the state should seize mom and pop shops when mom and pop dies? Then what? Try to sell it? Have it as state run enterprises? Now every generation must completely pull themselves up from zero, and the state seizing all value every time someone dies? Parents die accidentally - too bad for kids, the state seized all value and sent the kids into some state system. Countries that seize this much property don’t do too well economically.
  - eesmith 6y ago
    When the owners of a husband and wife shop die, with no inheritors, then what? If the children of the mom and pop shop die, and the children are preschool aged, with no other inheritors or people designated to handle the estate, then what? Effectively no one says that "every generation must completely pull themselves up from zero". Do you seriously think the children of working/labor class families, living in rental housing, and with no capital, completely pull themselves up from zero? Since they don't, neither do the children you hypothesis. So what's the point of your argument other than to tug at our heartstrings about those orphans? Oh, and if the mom and pop shop is bankrupt, or has little capital, and there isn't family or close friends able and willing to take care of the kids, then who will? Oh, right, "some state system." So if you are so concerned about these children, perhaps we need better orphanages and better support for the foster system. Now, how do we fund those improvements?