@Putin - why should socialists not believe in a fair tax code, I would prefer people are taxed while they are still alive to pay the money, at an appropriate rate and including a wealth tax. But taking the money off people when and just because they die does not seem fair.

"@Putin - why should socialists not believe in a fair tax code"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

See #3.

It's not "just because they die". It's a tax on unearned income and wealth. As it is, tax codes grossly favors unearned income and wealth over earned income. Your "fair tax code" enables the existence of a caste system.

"And Putin, tax avoidance is not tax evasion."

A distinction without a difference. You're using the details of the law in order to avoid your responsibilities as a citizen. That's cheating.

"Your "fair tax code" enables the existence of a caste system"

A classic error to confuse class with wealth, they are two very different things where I come from ..... you can have money but that doesn't mean you have class. I appreciate that in other countries class and money are more closely linked.

As I said if you taxed net personal wealth (above $5m) on an annual basis then there would be no need to tax the dead.

Inheritance benefits big landowners most of all, so in this case it's not really separate at all. It's how the aristocracy was made.

"As I said if you taxed net personal wealth (above $5m) on an annual basis then there would be no need to tax the dead."

Unearned income is unearned income. I fail to see why it being inherited makes a damn of a difference.

"Unearned income is unearned income. I fail to see why it being inherited makes a damn of a difference."
If I earn $1000 dollars after tax this month, should my wife pay tax on the $500 I give her, should my children be liable for tax on their pocket money, should I pay tax on the money I save ...... NO, NO & NO.
Imagine I do this month after month and year after year, over time I will accumulate wealth net of tax because I was financially prudent, it's still not taxable. I can give it to anybody I want at any free of tax.
I die and all of a sudden this money becomes taxable ...... WTF !!
So why do we do this?
I'm all for taxing personal wealth on an annual basis but taking from the dead ....NO.

Of course the people who inherit the wealth would be liable to pay the annual wealth tax also if they receive enough inheritance.

"I die and all of a sudden this money becomes taxable ...... WTF !!"

What if the "money" are assets/fixed means of production instead? You can't give parcels of factories out to your kids during the month as 'allowance'. So who controls these mechanisms of profiting off the labor of others/means of production after somebody dies? Does that person just get to transfer their capital to their kin and thus create another generation of surplus expropriators without even a tax on the transfer of these assets which are going to make these people fabulously wealthy without them doing a damned thing?

@Putin33 Yes, the owners of a business decides who succeeds in ownership. In *any* case the business is going to end up in the hands of someone who "didn't do a damned thing" whether it's the inheritors, or the government through tax confiscation. However the inheritors have more of an incentive to continue running the business properly.

"In *any* case the business is going to end up in the hands of someone who "didn't do a damned thing""

Bullshit. Many SMBs are family run and end up in the hands of someone who has been running the business alongside the deceased and often did as much as the deceased for the business, sometimes having even taken over from the owner when the owner retired from active fulltime management.

I didn't mention anything about confiscation but thanks for positing a false dichotomy.

At any rate the government did do something - it provided the infrastructure and public goods which the company exploited in order to make its profits. Plus the employees are part of the public which the government represents, and it is *their labor* which the property owners stole in order to acquire the wealth to begin with.

@Draugnar I accept your point but I was refuting Putin33's point as irrelevant even in the extreme that he stated it. Yes, I yield that perhaps the business will be passed to someone who did do a damn thing. However, *even if* the inheritors didn't do a damned thing, probably nobody else can claim to have done more, so why disinherit them? That is my point.

"Many SMBs are family run"

All hail nepotism!

Gotcha. Sorry. And I don't see Putin's posts without effort as I have muted the blowhard, anti-American, anti-Capitalist who thinks that paying a fair wage to workers is stealing from them.

Yes you presented an entirely false dichotomy between having an inheritance tax and confiscation.

It was your point that was irrelevant. I was suggesting that inheriting fabulous wealth without doing a damned thing should at least be taxed. Nothing whatsoever about confiscation.

As I see it, inheritance tax is just a greedy move done by jealous assholes wanting to steal another persons work and time (money), and then have the audacity to 'justify' it by claiming to end "dynastic wealth" and make people work and not "sit on the money".
First off, morally, this is absurd and really revolting. By what right can you tax a passing down of wealth from (let's say) father to son? If the father worked hard his entire life, (and possibly with the goal of giving to children) and wishes to pass down his wealth to his son, what right do you have to come and take a part of it? Economically, gaining an inheritance does not negatively affect the economy, no one stares at their money, the inheritors will certainly spend it, or even better, invest it.

@Putin33 The infrastructure and public goods are what the business has been paying taxes for on an ongoing basis. There's no need to hit it again when the owner dies.

"*their labor* which the property owners stole"

Can't say you don't stay on-message. Anyway, the whole trend is to produce with fewer workers involved, so this is getting better by itself, you should worry about it commensurably less. And in any event, assume they were paid. In what sense was labor stolen?

In what sense is taking a portion of inheritance not a confiscation when that inheritance is a business? In the same way that you can't parcel it out monthly as an allowance, nor can you parcel out a section of it to the government. If not confiscation, what were you proposing?

ILN - I see your point on morals, but isn't it just as morally wrong to condone an entrenched wealthy "aristocracy" that constantly has control over the means of production?

Because we've let this argument drift into that of small businesses, whereas the vast majority of these people who are affected by this tax (85%) are not small business owners.

"The infrastructure and public goods are what the business has been paying taxes for on an ongoing basis."

An infinitesimal amount compared to the overall cost of these enormous projects and compared to their profits.

"Anyway, the whole trend is to produce with fewer workers involved, so this is getting better by itself, you should worry about it commensurably less."

I don't no idea what your meaning is here. It this supposed to more of your Popular Science tantasy about automation?

"And in any event, assume they were paid. In what sense was labor stolen?"

Because they were not paid their full value. If they were then these expropriators wouldn't have any profits for sitting on their ass while hiring other people to do their work for them.

"but isn't it just as morally wrong to condone an entrenched wealthy "aristocracy" that constantly has control over the means of production? "

That is quite simply, a false statement. There are plenty of employee-owned companies. Look up what an ESOP is.

And where do you get your 85% figure. The value of a business, even a small one, can easily exceed 5 million.

"In what sense is taking a portion of inheritance not a confiscation when that inheritance is a business?"

Because they still retain control of their assets.

"If not confiscation, what were you proposing?"

A tax...

"At any rate the government did do something - it provided the infrastructure and public goods which the company exploited in order to make its profits."
Lol, you really like sucking other means dicks, eh? Praise be to government, all hail statism!
First off, it is the DUTY of the government to provide infrastructure, and private companies are also very competent (some would say more than gov) at doing the same thing. I love your Stalinist rants of "exploitation". For fucks sake, no one exploited no one, if I am elected to give you a piece of paper to write on, and I receive a little bit of money from you to buy that paper (or rather steal it), you then writing on that paper, leys say a poem, adding to the countries literature wealth, is not exploiting my paper. Thats absurd.

"which the property owners stole in order to acquire the wealth to begin with. "
LOL. Ironic how a statist acusses others of stealing. Stealing involves coercion,last time I checked employers voluntarily work, and can quit anytime.

"The value of a business, even a small one, can easily exceed 5 million."

Which makes the term "small business" a bogus term with no real meaning. Just a term the right trots out whenever they want to oppose any kind of accountability or fairness.

@Putin33 How would that tax be paid, if the business was operating at break-even?

Great point Draugnar. Indeed, employee owned companies perform better, pay their workers better, and are in general better places to work.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/05/31/why-we-need-more-employee-owned-businesses

However, the one caveat. "Less than 3% of plans are in public companies"
http://www.esop.org/

Its not a factor in major corporations. And in very few of those public companies do employees have a majority share. Again, I'm talking the top 0.3% of America's wealth.

@Putin33 If the workers are being exploited, then it should come as a great relief that the workers should be downsized. This doesn't happen in practice.

And Draug, I got my numbers from the Wall Street Journal. I was a little off.

15% - real estate holdings (farms are a fraction of this)
5.5% - small businesses
79.5% - publicly traded stock and bonds
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/12/16/does-the-estate-tax-hurt-farmers-and-family-businesses/

From your article:

"So what is in the big estates? Mostly publicly traded stock. The study found that publicly traded stock accounted for more than a third of the assets held by estates of $3.5 million or more."

How does one third (or even "more than one third" which presumably means less than one half) make it the primary holding of an estate?