The Estate Tax is un-American and should be permanently repealed.

[BigBadBrian]

The Socialist favored estate taxes will go into effect in January again. Also known as the death tax. This isn't good for small business, people have taken on the responsibility to actually save and make something of their lives, and our nation.

The estate tax should be permanently shit-canned.

[FORD]

Right. Because Jenna Bush's grandchildren have every right to live off of Nazi blood money :rolleyes:

[Seshmeister]

The Socialist favored estate taxes will go into effect in January again. Also known as the death tax. This isn't good for small business, people have taken on the responsibility to actually save and make something of their lives, and our nation.

The estate tax should be permanently shit-canned.

The point is though that those people would be dead at that point and who you are trying to protect is their children so they can sit about on their fat asses and do nothing for themselves or the country.

If you are the kind of person that needs to sponge over a million from your folks when they die then you are a pretty pointless person.

If you want to wage war all over the world using your federal government army then you need to pay for it.

[Seshmeister]

And the clever Conservative economists agree with me.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/269796/listen-to-adam-smith-inheritance-tax-is-good.thtml



Listen to Adam Smith
Listen to Adam Smith: inheritance tax is good
IRWIN STELZER17 OCTOBER 2007

Inheritance tax is one levy that makes good economic sense

Politics trumps economics. That’s the best summary of the Tory and Labour competition to pander to those who until now have been threatened with paying to the Treasury a portion of the money they receive for just ‘being there’.

Let’s de-emotionalise this issue. An inheritance tax is not a death duty. The slogan ‘No taxation without respiration’ is too clever by half. Even a Chancellor of the Exchequer as powerful as the previous occupant of the office could not get a corpse to sign a cheque. It is a tax paid by the recipient of this income, the inheritor, the lucky winner in the sperm lottery.

Nor, finally, is it a tax on a lifetime of thrift. In most cases the wealth being taxed results from a rise in the value of houses — not something brought about by the acumen and hard work of the owner, but by a decade of low interest rates and economic growth, or the good fortune of having a public amenity plunked down in the neighbourhood.

That out of the way, let’s consider why the rush to appease a few voters in a few marginals is bad economic policy.

Barry Bracewell-Milnes, a student and an opponent of these taxes, concedes that ‘Inheritance without taxation weakens the beneficiary’s incentive to work.’ Surveys by the Economic and Social Research Council show that only a very small minority of people say they work for ‘enjoyment’; most work for what ESRC researchers call ‘mainly instrumental reasons’ — to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. Studies by the Policy Studies Institute and the London School of Economics support this conclusion: 70 per cent of the men and half the women questioned say the main reason they work is to ‘earn money for necessities’.

So it should come as no surprise that researchers at America’s Syracuse University find (with appropriate caveats), ‘An inheritance received by a family reduces the probability that both spouses will continue to work, and increases the probability that both will retire.’ In short, Andrew Carnegie, the great Scottish philanthropist and a special Gordon Brown hero, had it right — ‘The parent who leaves his son enormous wealth generally deadens the talents and energies of the son and tempts him to lead a less useful and less worthy life than he otherwise would.’ Leave inheritances untaxed, and many of the young inheritors will exit the productive workforce, not a good thing for an economy needing to encourage hard work in an increasingly competitive world.

We know, too, that inheritance taxes encourage parents to spend money enhancing their children’s educational and social skills. Unable to leave a tax-free financial package, parents are more likely to pour some of their wealth into what University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan calls ‘educational and health expenditures, financial gifts, or time spent teaching or nurturing them [their children]’. It is a social misfortune that such an inheritance is not more widely available — but that’s a policy discussion for another day. What is important here is that inheritance taxes encourage parents to invest in skills during their children’s formative years.

Then there is the practical question: where will the money come from to replace the revenues lost when the take from inheritance taxes is reduced? Since the Tories have promised, cross their hearts and hope to die, that they will spend as much as the Labour wastrels, it won’t come from reductions in government spending. No, it will come from pensioners, whose incomes will now be capped sooner than originally planned; employees who have invested in Save As You Earn (SAYE) schemes; higher taxes on farmers selling their farms; the military, which forfeits any prospect of a real increase in the funds available to defend the realm; small businessmen who had been encouraged by the last Chancellor to risk their meagre capital and ample sweat equity in the hope of selling out and paying only a 10 per cent capital gains tax; non-doms (of which I am one) who will pay £30,000 per year in addition to the taxes on the money they earn and spend in Britain; and hedge-fund operators who have been pretending that their ordinary incomes are capital gains, but who will still be allowed that pretence, their tax raised to 18 per cent from 10 per cent, but not to the 40 per cent that others pay on such incomes.

The non-doms and the hedge-fund operators are reasonable targets, if equity is all there is to consider. But these financial types are the most mobile of the assets located in Britain. Not all will flee, but some will, and others eyeing Britain as a site for new businesses will now know it is less worthwhile than it once was to brave the mean streets of London by taking up residence in a town with one of the highest costs of doing business in the world.

But if it is equity that the Labour taxmen are after, why penalise pensioners (again) and small businessmen (again), and employee-savers, and all the other innocent bystanders? All to benefit a handful of taxpayers who happen to be concentrated in key marginals.

Which brings us to the final objection to this forgiveness of taxes on inheritance, which in the end is no different from any other income the beneficiary might receive — except that it is not earned by the sweat of his brow or the whirring of his brain. The tax cuts could have been better concentrated on lowering the marginal tax rate faced by all earners. Reduce taxes on the pay for that extra work, and you will get more of it; reduce taxes on the profits from risk-taking, and entrepreneurs will take more chances and create more jobs. Reduce the taxes on recipients of inheritances, on the other hand, and they will work less and be less likely to start up new businesses. Worse still, and perhaps most important, to abandon the laudable goal of trying to make opportunity more equal for all in order to favour the beneficiaries of perhaps the 6 per cent of estates that pay inheritance taxes is a terrible policy trade-off.

At least to an economist, whose policy role should be to tell politicians the cost of their decisions, and then leave it to them to decide whether a policy is worth its cost. Inheritance taxes make good economic sense, but against the economic advantages must be set the limitation they impose on the freedom of people to dispose of their lawfully earned wealth as they see fit.

In my view, that reduction in freedom — the cost of retaining inheritance taxes — is outweighed by the benefits: the economic advantages, especially when compared with other taxes, and their contribution to the drive for greater equality of opportunity. Which makes it too bad that politics trumped economics, since the result is neither greater overall fairness, nor the increased stimulus to economic growth that alternative tax cuts would provide.

Messrs Darling and Osborne would do all of us a favour if they would whip out their undoubtedly dog-eared copies of The Wealth of Nations. To meet the criteria of ‘evident justice and utility’, Adam Smith supported a tax on wealth inherited by children ‘who have got families of their own, and are supported by funds separate and independent of their father’. Which is why the Economist classifies Smith as one of the political economists ‘broadly in favour’ of the estate tax. Pity that two Scots, both hailing from Kirkcaldy, differ on this policy question.

Irwin Stelzer is director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute and a columnist for the Sunday Times.

[jhale667]

This only really matters to fat-cat rich fucks (which I'm betting BBB doesn't fall under category-wise). So yes, the Bush twins should have their leftover Nazi earnings reduced.
For the average citizen, t's like Bill Maher said "Don't worry Joe the Plumber, when you die the government is not coming to take your rusty Bowflex machine..."

[Seshmeister]

I just don't get the way people vote for policies that would help them if they happen to win the lottery at odds of 13 million to 1 rather than for policies that would help them just now.

I think it's partly explained by the rich and powerful brainwashing them through the media but it can't all be that...?

[Nitro Express]

The rich just keep the money in offshore accounts or leave when the taxes get too high. Warren Buffet pays less tax than his secretary. The middle class making $200-500 a year are the ones who get screwed.

[vanhalen1r2]

Right. Because Jenna Bush's grandchildren have every right to live off of Nazi blood money :rolleyes:

So what the Kennedy's ?

[FORD]

If we have to sacrifice the Kennedys to get rid of the BCE and the Rockefellers, it might be worth it. All the "real" Kennedys are dead now anyways. I like some of the causes Bobby Jr is involved in, but I'm sure he's making a comfortable living without the family legacy money.

[Nitro Express]

Lawrence Rockefeller was a long-time resident on Jackson Hole. He passed away and donated his ranch to the public. I don't think he was as sharkish as Nelson or David. David Rockefeller was one of the powerhouses behind NAFTA and the globalization and outsourcing of US industry. The thing is these guys don't pay taxes. Look. Timothy Geitner got caught not paying taxes and he's still running the US Treasury which runs the IRS. It's all about connections and if you aren't in the big club, you get fucked.

[Nitro Express]

I did a paper on the Kennedy family when I was in college in 1987. My research showed all that was left of Joseph Kennedy's fortune was $10 million. Since Ted is gone and John Jr. crashed, the Kennedy's are off the map. As far as the Rockefellers go, they still have billions and are very well vested in Exxon and other energy companies. The fourth generation have actually taken on their mother's maiden name so they won't be known as Rockefellers. Much of the stuff that has fucked the US in the last 50 years was a product of David and Nelson.

[Seshmeister]

The rich just keep the money in offshore accounts or leave when the taxes get too high. Warren Buffet pays less tax than his secretary. The middle class making $200-500 a year are the ones who get screwed.

If you are expecting people to weep for people on $200k to $500k having to pay 10% more tax than the 98% of people they are sitting above then you should be seriously misled.

But maybe you aren't because people are dumb.

[Nickdfresh]

The Socialist favored estate taxes will go into effect in January again. Also known as the death tax. This isn't good for small business, people have taken on the responsibility to actually save and make something of their lives, and our nation.

The estate tax should be permanently shit-canned.

Not good for small businesses? Really? Actually, not having an estate tax is completely contrary to the conservative rhetoric of merit versus inherit, and leads to lazy, useless trust fund fucks who've never had to work for anything and is the very essence of the socialist bogyman that murders entrepreneurial spirit you so claim to detest....

[Nickdfresh]

So what the Kennedy's ?

The ones whose "chosen" son died fighting the Nazis? (Well, actually he died in a stupid flying bomb project accident, but...)

[Nickdfresh]

This only really matters to fat-cat rich fucks (which I'm betting BBB doesn't fall under category-wise). So yes, the Bush twins should have their leftover Nazi earnings reduced.
For the average citizen, t's like Bill Maher said "Don't worry Joe the Plumber, when you die the government is not coming to take your rusty Bowflex machine..."

The funny thing is that the most ardent, outspoken Republican tax-whiners on the internet are rarely any higher than middle class and I'd bet a good number of them are uneducated and are easily persuaded by advertising and marketing to vote against their own self interests...

Secondly, a lot of people who have money such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates (via his dad whose politically conservative, but ardently believes the rich should pay more in taxes and the current GOP douches are nothing but a socially irresponsible tax-cult of rhetoric and bullshit) actually WANT, or at least accept they should, pay more in taxes....

[Satan]

The only exception to the Estate Tax should be if they could literally take their money with them.

And since JC himself said that camels walk through eyes of needles more often than rich people enter Heaven.....

...well we all know whose economy would benefit from that. http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/teufel/d010.gif

[Nickdfresh]

Watch the 60 Minutes recent package on this very issue:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7009217n&tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea.5

[BigBadBrian]

Not good for small businesses? Really? Actually, not having an estate tax is completely contrary to the conservative rhetoric of merit versus inherit, and leads to lazy, useless trust fund fucks who've never had to work for anything and is the very essence of the socialist bogyman that murders entrepreneurial spirit you so claim to detest....

Useless trust fund fucks? Really...you believe that? Yeah...we all know the halls of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc are full of poor, illegal aliens from SoCal just waiting to run America's companies. The son of the owner of a small business with maybe three employees making $250,000 and set to take over the biz should have to pay half the value of it, right? Afterall, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have better uses for that money than keeping a business going, paying three employees, and maybe expanding to hire more people, right?

Inheritance, essentially money given to someone without having to work for it, leads to laziness? I guess that says it all when it comes to welfare and unemployment compensation (all 99 weeks worth), also money given to someone for free. Let's do away with those too so we can rid the groups receiving those of laziness also, OK? Deal!!!

[knuckleboner]

Useless trust fund fucks? Really...you believe that? Yeah...we all know the halls of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc are full of poor, illegal aliens from SoCal just waiting to run America's companies. The son of the owner of a small business with maybe three employees making $250,000 and set to take over the biz should have to pay half the value of it, right?

that's never been how the estate tax operated. there was always an exclusion amount. worst case, if no action occurs, that means $1 million. a single person can leave a business valued at $1 million or less to his/her son without ANY tax. a couple can leave a business worth $2 million. the democratic house plan would've changed that to $3.5 million and $7 million. the senate's likely plan, had reid not been inept and clueless, was to move it to at least $5 million and $10 million.

believe me, there are very few small businesses worth $3.5 million. and far less worth $10 million. but the few that are have millionaire owners, so the question is, would we rather raise your and my taxes instead? or, maybe we're ok with the extra $30 billion in debt? or, i know, cut fraud and wasteful spending. ok. that takes care of the NEW debt that eliminating the estate tax causes. but what do we do with the existing debt?...

[GAR]

Right. Because Jenna Bush's grandchildren have every right to live off of Nazi blood money :rolleyes:

bushbushbushbushbush..

[GAR]

Useless trust fund fucks? Really...you believe that? Yeah...we all know the halls of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc are full of poor, illegal aliens from SoCal just waiting to run America's companies. The son of the owner of a small business with maybe three employees making $250,000 and set to take over the biz should have to pay half the value of it, right? Afterall, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have better uses for that money than keeping a business going, paying three employees, and maybe expanding to hire more people, right?

Inheritance, essentially money given to someone without having to work for it, leads to laziness? I guess that says it all when it comes to welfare and unemployment compensation (all 99 weeks worth), also money given to someone for free. Let's do away with those too so we can rid the groups receiving those of laziness also, OK? Deal!!!

The Chinese have a simple way of dodging it: they just cash out and dissolve, then setup shop with a different name.

Also you can give your kids 10K in cash one time a year without tax or penalty.

[Seshmeister]

The Socialist favored estate taxes will go into effect in January again. Also known as the death tax. This isn't good for small business, people have taken on the responsibility to actually save and make something of their lives, and our nation.

The estate tax should be permanently shit-canned.

You are ignoring the facts again with your simplistic approach to the world.

You call it 'un-American' whatever that means but it was first implemented in 1797 and in it's present form in 1910.

It's basically a voluntary tax because you can avoid it and it brings very little revenue into the government, the idea is that it redistributes wealth earlier usually among the family.

[binnie]

This is one which I go back and forth on.

If I become incredibly successful, does the government have the right to prevent me from looking after my kids when I die? That is essentially what (excessve) inheritance tax does.

On the other hand, allowing people to essentially be bank rolled by the success of their parents seems to be damaging to society - it encourages inertia in many people. It is grossly unfair that some people have an 'easier' life (or at least one with more opportunities) because that ballsack they sprang from was attached to a wealthy man. If you want to work and become rich, fine; but there is something repellant about just being handed it at birth, so to speak.

I really get stuck in the grey on this one. For the most part, I side with the right of the individual to do whatever they want with their money. You want to make your kids very wealthy after you're gone? So be it. (I write that as someone who stands to inherit very litte: neither my parents, or my partner's, own a home.) Chances are, that incredibly wealthy person has already paid more tax, and contributed more to society by running businesses and employing people, than most of the people who stand around bitching about trust fund babies.

But, I will say this, having to worry about inheritance tax is a nice problem to have!

[Seshmeister]

How many partners do you have up there on the fence? :)

Remember we are talking about a tax on stuff over a million(per kid) that you didn't pass over to them before you died.

And this money is then used by the government. Ok admittedly in the case of the US that probably means pissed away on some ridiculously unneccesary weapons but still...

[binnie]

I hear ya Sesh - ask me tommorrow and I might have gone back to the other side!