Yeah, they are still trying to get their grubby political paws involved in our country.

So much wrong in this thread. Goldie - trickle down doesn't work? Realllllly.....so what? You are employed by a poor person that makes less money then you?

Estate/Inheritance taxes kill small/ family businesses/ farms, forcing families to close/sell the family business/dark to corporations - something I would think even capitalist-hating Liberals would abhor.

Plus, you avoid death races.by putting your estate in a living trust, which any rich person knows and does. Thus, once again the hard-on Libtards have to sticking it to the rich falls woefully short of it's goal, hurts the wrong people and, clearly given the increasing poverty in the us, is failing to help anyone.

Good nob Libtards...rotten greedy baztards all of you - always trying to reap the benefit if others hard work.

I don't find the double tax argument so compelling, what's the difference between that and sales tax, stamp duty, sin taxes, or any other sort of consumption tax? On the other side there's payroll tax that gets taken out before income tax, etc

You get taxed lots of times; I think it's about the tax burden in total and how much it distorts the market at each point, rather than how many times a tax is applied as a dollar enters and leaves your possession


I think there should be some sort of inheritance tax specifically so that people can start off from a more level playing field (i.e. everyone should have the opportunity to succeed, and a tax on something that ensures someone has more opportunity than most seems sensible)


Though I don't think it should go too far, and no-one likes taxes so justifying them is always hard, but I don't think you can rule it out as a sensible revenue raising measure, as part of the mix.

This is one of those things where in different countries there are very different attitudes to this, and I think mine is a UK-based viewpoint which is fairly common there

@kestas - You just stated the difference. Nothing is being consumed on any of the death taxes. Nothing is being earned and nothing is being consumed. So why is it being taxed? And when you ask the state government about their share, they say "it's not a tax on the inheritors, but on the estate" so it isn't even that it is considered income for those inheriting the estate. No, it is simply a tax on the person who is dying. Simply by doing what everyone has to do, you get taxed. Is that fair?

"how much it distorts the market at each point" that should really be "how efficient a tax it is"

I guess whether it's a tax on the inheritors or the estate is kind of immaterial; it's a tax on some transfer of wealth. I don't see why it's so different to a tax on earning or consumption, or any of the other varieties.

Whether it's fair is kind of subjective I guess, but I don't see inheritance as untouchable. Like I say I'm all about reducing the total tax burden, but I don't see why inheritance should be immune

Because often times the estate was built up by the participation of the whole family, not just the individual who croaked. Everyone in the family sacrificed to make the business a success so it isn't a transfer of wealth so much as a recognition of the sacrifices made to build that wealth.

I could handle it in the case of inheritances that weren't part of the same household (inheriting from a miserly distant uncle who left no will), but in the case where it is the same household or where it is specified in a will do to the efforts of the person receiving it to make the person leaving it's life better, it isn't earned income.

I could also agree to a reasonable tax on true liquid assets only. Not businesses or homes or real property, only cash and stocks. But 50% is too steep. Make it 20% of liquid above 5 million to non-household family (exclude household members present or past and non-family specified in a will for services above and beyond the call kind of stuff, like the nurse who took care of rich old man in his failing years or the kid who brought groceries home for rich old lady for years).

There is no logical argument for why these are good taxes. the "level the playing field" argument is nonsense. By that argument, whenever anyone is the "heir" of a poor person, the government should right them a check to lift you up to a median standard of living, because poor old pop never made it and we need to level the playing field for the survivor.

And this "level the playing field" nonsense...please, very often this wealth is tied up in a business, and by taxing it at 50% you can kill the business, meaning that the surviving family, instead of carrying on working , **providing jobs to others**, etc, gets financially devastated.

What sort of perverse philosophy do people have in which wealth should be destroyed and people/business harmed "just because it's fair"....as opposed to keeping a business in place, allowing people to keep their jobs, keep the business, and hopefully grow it to employ more people.

Also...OK, so you have "leveled the playing field" (i.e. hurt a "rich person", which somehow always makes a liberal feel better about himself knowing someone else has been harmed...)...how does that ever help a poor person? Perhaps none of you wealth-grabbers have noticed, but the government's "war on poverty" is an abysmal failure. Apparently, their wealth confiscation and redistribution scheme is not working.

So perhaps a new tactic is called for: Governmetn do NOT confiscate wealth, and let the marketplace redistribute it through the work place...(because despite the cries from the left that "tickle down dowsn't work", I have yet to ever have a job in which money trickled UP to me from a poor person…

If my $5,000,000 turned to $2,500,000, I would be "financially devastated" just as you say, krellin. Ouch, what a bummer.

bo, if your 5 Mill turned in to 2.5 million and you ran a business that required capital investment, then yes, you may be devestated.

But because you are naive and simple-minded, I'll spell it out for you. That $5 million may be 92% tied up in land wealth, equipment - say manufacturing equipment or farming equipment, and other business supplies. When you silly people start talkign about wealth with the Liberal greed in your eyes, you assume some value on a piece of paper is actually a pile of cash. It's not. It *never* is. It is usually investments, assetts, which then have to be sold in order to pay the taxes.

So yes, when you $5 Million becomes $2.5 million because you had to sell your tractor, your combine and half your herd, you are devastated, Bo, because your business just fell apart.

Maybe if you educated yourself you wouldn't look so silly.

An estate tax is on an estate, not a business.

Oh, my bad, business interest is included. I thought it wasn't.

Mr Naive steps up tot he plate again....Bo, I have run a business...**it WAS PART OF MY PERSONAL ESTATE** because of the way my business was structured. Most family farms, unless incorporated, are part of the estate.

Educate yourself, Bo.

'What Draug said. The money has already been taxed, and should not be taxed again. Whether the legislature has the right to do that or not is irrelevant; it shouldn't be allowed.'

That is like the stupidest statement i've ever read.

Whether people vote for it or not, what they want is irrelevant, it shouldn't be allowed... by what power should you get to decide what is or isn't allowed for others to VOTE?

I think this is an interesting debate. I would like to point out for the benefit of the people who are against an estate tax the tremendous benefits that the wealthy enjoy in Westernized countries, compared to the (comparatively small) amount of effort that they are expected to expend (e.g. monetary, etc.) in order to help shoulder the burden that is placed upon society as a whole to provide those benefits.

"compared to the (comparatively small) amount of effort that they are expected to expend"

Good lord...first an foremost, it take extraordinary effort to become wealthy in most cases...else everyone *would* be.

Second, the wealthy often have this title applied to them by reasonable people: "Job Creator" / "Job Provider" My wealthy boss, who has enough money he doesn't *need* to be here, none the less keeps his small family business open and provides employment to 14 people.

So when you suggest that the comparatively small effort they are expected to expend, you, no doubt, are talking about the Liberal version of expending effort -- i.e. opening up their pocket so that some leech can stick his hand in and grab. What you, and most good liberal, fail to take in to account is that most Americans work for a small business, meaning they work for a wealthy person who is putting their wealth to work to create jobs.

But all liberals see is a pile of cash they want to grab.

If you grab too much of my boss's cash, he'll close shop, because why keep it open if he can't profit from it, when he could just retire and travel?

To back up Krellin's point. 52% of all jobs in the US are from small businesses according to the SBA. That's over half. Tax the small business owners out of existence and who is going to employ all those people?

Draug - thank you for correcting me with the households number. I thought the number of households were significantly less than 100 million.

So, we have a new number in mind: 300,000. According to the articles I cited, 15% of those households are the farms and businesses that your worry is about - 45,000. Put that in the context of the number of households in the US - 100 million - and you can see that this is a very, very small number of people affected. And most of those business you mention will escape harm if they just incorporate themselves. My father incorporated his firm so that any losses by the firm wouldn't affect him.

And the people being punished often don't do any of the work to make that money. Has Paris Hilton helped her father build up his hotel business? What about the grandson of the Red Bull founder in Thailand who just parties for a living? Or the Waldens who just sit on their cash and hoard it? These are the people this tax is meant for. People whose inheritance is in the tens to hundreds of millions.

You do have a good point when you argue for liquid assets being the only ones taxable, but if that were so then *everyone* would just put their money into real estate so that it doesn't get taxed. Even if they lose 20% of its value in the market, that's less than the tax so they won't mind.

"Tax the small business owners out of existence and who is going to employ all those people? "

Easy - multinationals, who will swoop in and fill the void, be it farming or mom-and-pop shops. and we all know how much Liberals like minimum-wage paying multinationals.

So yeah...go ahead and kill the wealthy small business owner...see how that works out for ya, Libbies.

"Has Paris Hilton helped her father build up his hotel business?"

You know why Paris Hilton is in the news? Because she is the *exception*. But You silly Libs like to take the outlier – the Paris Hilton sucking on the Daddies spoon – and pretend that this is the norm. It’s NOT. It nowhere *near* the norm! But, because your silly mainstream media likes to trot Paris in front of the camera, and that’s what you see, you live under this ridiculous impression that all “rich” people are just like Paris, living of the tit of their Daddy’s wealth, etc. If you live under such an impression, it is impossible to reason with you, because you are detached from reality.

Before I worked for the current business I am in, I used to work for another independently wealthy, multi-millionaire. He started life as a Butcher, worked his ass off during the day, built a second business by night. Live on about 80 acres, has a house in California, owns multiple small businesses in my town, very generous to charity…and his sons are 1: a plumber, and 2: a lawyer, both working full time jobs.

Job before that, also a small family run business, father worked a regular job and built a second business at night, worked his ass off, never saw his kids growing up. Now runs multiple businesses, employs many people and his sons are: 1. Part time help in business, also runs a web design company and 2. Part time help in business, also works for a small craft brewery as a brewer.

Yeah…those god damned rich kids sucking of Mommy and Daddy’s money…

Fuck you, you stupid morons. I’m so tired of idiotic liberals, most of whom probably work for someone very much like I describe above, who want to punish the people who work their asses off to create jobs, and all your fucktards want to do is punish them.

Why don't some of you libtards go out and interview some of your local small businessmen. find out who they REALLY are, as opposed to whom you are told they are by Politicians. ***I DARE YOU***

To the politically ignorant this is another left-right issue which of course it is not, it is another rich vs poor issue.
I think the worst punishment for a grieving family is having to carve up the family silverware as it inevitably causes division at a time when families should be united, when a key figure in their family has passed away.
I do wonder why govts fail miserably to tax the rich when they are alive and kicking, then mug them for their life savings when they die.
Maybe if the tax system was more equitable there would not be the need to rob the dead as they would have paid there way throughout their life.
This is where my wealth 3% tax would work.
If Inheritance Tax was scrapped maybe the wealthy would not work so hard to hide the money around the world in various tax havens.
Currently in the UK you can leave £325k tax free, after this inheritance tax is at 40% of any remaining assets, how ridiculous is that.
If you have an estate of £2m you would pay 40% of £1.675m - £670k.
Why not charge 10% of assets over £1m and the money has to go into a sovereign wealth fund for important infrastructure projects.

> I could also agree to a reasonable tax on true liquid assets only. Not businesses
> or homes or real property, only cash and stocks. But 50% is too steep. Make it
> 20% of liquid above 5 million to non-household family (exclude household
> members present or past and non-family specified in a will for services above and
> beyond the call kind of stuff, like the nurse who took care of rich old man in his
> failing years or the kid who brought groceries home for rich old lady for years).
Fair enough, I also think 50% is steep, and now you're getting into the subtle nuance of the tax which is always difficult.

e.g. I think most of us would agree that taxing large cash transfers from distant relatives to young irresponsible kids is okay, and that taxing father to son transfers of a business they both built isn't okay.
Then in the middle you've got father to son transfers of large amounts of shares in a semi-owned business, or large trust funds from distant relatives to benefit their poor, extended family in a responsible way, and everything in between.

These are tricky ones and I think there's room for reasonable disagreement (not just in what's right, but what can be practically enforced; if you can put money into houses just to pass it on it's pointless taxing money)

"I think the worst punishment for a grieving family is having to carve up the family silverware as it inevitably causes division at a time when families should be united, when a key figure in their family has passed away."

So stealing from them is better, obviously!

What a sociopathic take on the situation and solution.

@Pres - you know when young people say silly stupid churlish things because they don't know better but they know words and like to impress adults, these things have a terrible habit of coming back to haunt them, of course one day you will be in this situation and you'll have to eat your own words; ignorance and naivety as a defense will only get you so far, sometimes you need to be smarter........
My point is that families should not have to pay inheritance tax if they have previously paid taxes on the monies and wealth throughout their life on the income, in your rush to be super-smart you completely miss the point.
With a married couple the assets will automatically pass to the spouse on death but then on the death of the spouse there is a 40% tax to pay on all assets minus the allowances (£325k per person so £650k total for both parents). This can lead to forced sales of assets or businesses/property below market prices just to pay the tax bill.
I can understand most taxes, especially on consumption, income and wealth but taxing a dead person at 40%, how is this legal? Who has more right to this money than the relatives of the deceased, surely not the state, why?
Is this not the ultimate insult the state can bestow on an individual after encouraging people all of their life to be financially responsible, whip the money off of them at death. Why does the state want with this 40%, what rights do they have to demand this cash?
Maybe the thousands of super rich who apply to be Swiss citizens every year just to avoid paying these taxes would slow to a trickle if inheritance tax was scrapped completely, also a small army of tax avoidance specialists would be looking for alternative work.

Nigee's a socialist and he opposes the inheritance tax?

What alternative universe is this?

If you heirs are paying massive inheritance taxes, then you are probably too stupid to have it in the first place. Anyone with a business or even just plain cash over the minimum has enough to hire an estate lawyer that can restructure it into a form that owes almost nothing to the government. Whether it's putting the assets into trusts or just taking out a life insurance policy to cover the taxes, it doesn't take that much money to make sure the government doesn't take it.

Most small businesses don't even meet the threshold for inheritance taxes. Larger companies are set up so assets are shielded until the company is sold by the heirs.

"If you heirs are paying massive inheritance taxes, then you are probably too stupid to have it in the first place."

Or not a tax cheat. Or an economic patriot. But yeah.

Every single damned loophole in the tax code is done in the name of these stupid "small businesses", who want every excuse they can muster to not follow the law.