6 ms·

A option they seemed to have left out is raising the "inheritance tax". If these baby boomers got Reagan tax breaks in their prime earning years, we should comp

A option they seemed to have left out is raising the "inheritance tax". If these baby boomers got Reagan tax breaks in their prime earning years, we should compensate by increasing the "death tax".

bking 14y ago
So when they do finally pass on and leave their wealth the government takes it and mismanages it?
- gergles 14y ago
  The government takes it to pay for the benefits they got in excess of what they paid in while they were alive. Look at the chart in the article.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    Good thing none of them will think of spending it or giving it away before they die. Really, while there are arguments to be made for and against estate taxes, using it to correct a generational imbalance is incredibly silly.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
jug6ernaut 14y ago
The "death tax" should be abolished. Its ridiculous, even beyond the ridiculous notion of taxing someone to die, how many times should YOUR money get taxed? Once? Twice? Three times? When does it stop? Our (U.S.) tax code is absolutely horrible, but even with that revenue isn't the problem, spending is. I would say that politicians will ALWAYS spend every dime they have, but in reality they spend money they dont have. Awesome system we have.
- luser001 14y ago
  I'll ignore your grossly inaccurate phrase "taxing someone to die". your money is taxed once: when you receive it. Until you receive it, it isn't your money, it's your parent's.
  - jwhitlark 14y ago
    This begs the question, do you actually own something when you can't decide how it is disposed of? So maybe it's not even your parent's.
- sbierwagen 14y ago
  The estate tax doesn't tax the first $5,000,000 of an estate. After that, the rate is 35%. It's a tax on the one percent. The vast, vast majority of Americans will never be bothered by it.
  - jboggan 14y ago
    Yes, and under current law that is set to go down to $1,000,000 in less than three months. It is not a tax on the "one percent".
    - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
      $1,000,00 net worth for an individual is, in fact, the bottom border of the top 1%.
    - dmm 14y ago
      In 2010 the IRS received 142 823 000 individual tax returns. An estimated 52 500 returns will pay estate taxes in 2013. (52000 / 142823000) * 100 ~= 0.036 You're right. It's not a tax on the "one percent", it's a tax on the "one-third of one-percent" http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/federal_govt_finances_employment/federal_individual_income_tax_returns.html http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/federal_govt_fin... http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/estate/how-many.cfm http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/es...
amalcon 14y ago
While I agree in principle, in practice it's kind of pointless. Inheritance taxes are incredibly easy to dodge.
- swang720 14y ago
  Do you have any evidence to back this up?
  - ihsw 14y ago
    As other's have noted it can be bypassed through providing assets to children before death.
    - d2vid 14y ago
      It's not THAT easy. Gifts are taxable: http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Frequently-Asked-Questions-on-Gift-Taxes http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Em... So are trust fund transfers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-skipping_transfer_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-skipping_transfer_ta...
      - danielweber 14y ago
        At anything like a 50% estate tax, a 20-millionaire can just hire a bunch of family members at $100,000 a year and lose less in income and payroll taxes. It's not 100% trivial, but there is an entire industry devoted to helping people with this. That industry really shouldn't exist.
danielweber 14y ago
Whatever other arguments are being made for or against an estate tax, I'll just say if you goal is to move assets from the boomers' generation to their children's generation, putting a tax on transfers from the boomers' generation to their children's generation seems a very very weird way of doing it.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - danielweber 14y ago
    The money won't be collected until after it has been paid out to the baby boomers and then waiting for them to die. And hoping they don't distribute it, which they will obviously do if high estate taxes come into play. This is just nonsense. Argue for an estate tax if you want, but don't say it's to compensate for the low taxes the boomers got.

A option they seemed to have left out is raising the "inheritance tax". If these baby boomers got Reagan tax breaks in their prime earning years, we should compensate by increasing the "death tax".

bking 14y ago

So when they do finally pass on and leave their wealth the government takes it and mismanages it?

gergles 14y ago
The government takes it to pay for the benefits they got in excess of what they paid in while they were alive. Look at the chart in the article.
- danielweber 14y ago
  Good thing none of them will think of spending it or giving it away before they die. Really, while there are arguments to be made for and against estate taxes, using it to correct a generational imbalance is incredibly silly.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

jug6ernaut 14y ago

The "death tax" should be abolished. Its ridiculous, even beyond the ridiculous notion of taxing someone to die, how many times should YOUR money get taxed? Once? Twice? Three times? When does it stop? Our (U.S.) tax code is absolutely horrible, but even with that revenue isn't the problem, spending is. I would say that politicians will ALWAYS spend every dime they have, but in reality they spend money they dont have. Awesome system we have.

luser001 14y ago
I'll ignore your grossly inaccurate phrase "taxing someone to die". your money is taxed once: when you receive it. Until you receive it, it isn't your money, it's your parent's.
- jwhitlark 14y ago
  This begs the question, do you actually own something when you can't decide how it is disposed of? So maybe it's not even your parent's.
sbierwagen 14y ago
The estate tax doesn't tax the first $5,000,000 of an estate. After that, the rate is 35%. It's a tax on the one percent. The vast, vast majority of Americans will never be bothered by it.
- jboggan 14y ago
  Yes, and under current law that is set to go down to $1,000,000 in less than three months. It is not a tax on the "one percent".
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    $1,000,00 net worth for an individual is, in fact, the bottom border of the top 1%.
  - dmm 14y ago
    In 2010 the IRS received 142 823 000 individual tax returns. An estimated 52 500 returns will pay estate taxes in 2013. (52000 / 142823000) * 100 ~= 0.036 You're right. It's not a tax on the "one percent", it's a tax on the "one-third of one-percent" http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/federal_govt_finances_employment/federal_individual_income_tax_returns.html http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/federal_govt_fin... http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/estate/how-many.cfm http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/es...

amalcon 14y ago

While I agree in principle, in practice it's kind of pointless. Inheritance taxes are incredibly easy to dodge.

swang720 14y ago
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
- ihsw 14y ago
  As other's have noted it can be bypassed through providing assets to children before death.
  - d2vid 14y ago
    It's not THAT easy. Gifts are taxable: http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Frequently-Asked-Questions-on-Gift-Taxes http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Em... So are trust fund transfers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-skipping_transfer_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-skipping_transfer_ta...
    - danielweber 14y ago
      At anything like a 50% estate tax, a 20-millionaire can just hire a bunch of family members at $100,000 a year and lose less in income and payroll taxes. It's not 100% trivial, but there is an entire industry devoted to helping people with this. That industry really shouldn't exist.

danielweber 14y ago

Whatever other arguments are being made for or against an estate tax, I'll just say if you goal is to move assets from the boomers' generation to their children's generation, putting a tax on transfers from the boomers' generation to their children's generation seems a very very weird way of doing it.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- danielweber 14y ago
  The money won't be collected until after it has been paid out to the baby boomers and then waiting for them to die. And hoping they don't distribute it, which they will obviously do if high estate taxes come into play. This is just nonsense. Argue for an estate tax if you want, but don't say it's to compensate for the low taxes the boomers got.