Barney Frank and Inheritance Tax: Hypocricy On Display

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

what exactly did heirs do to earn this $ other than being born into that family? this isnt a monarchy and never has been. heirs didnt work a day in their life to earn anything, so why should they be able to get everything for free?

and the constitution gives the government to right to collect taxes... or did you forget about that little clause... if you did its article 1, section 8 as well as the 16th amendment.

Were you dropped on your head as a baby? No, seriously, were you? My father-in-law gave my son his father's (f-i-l's dad and my sons great grandfather) shotgun. It was a family posession handed down from generation to generation. Should my son have been taxed by the government for this family gift? It doesn't matter if it is a gun, a family picture album, a doily, your old man's fishnet stocking leg lamp or his monetary fortune. You posess it and it is yours to do what you choose with it. Why the fuck should the government be entitled to take a portion of my hard earned wealth I want to pass to my son so they can give it to some crack whore mother so she can have things she didn't work for. Hell, if she wants some of my money, she can come ask for a handout. I'm a very charitable person. But I decide how and where my money goes. I don't need the gubmint being the middle man. If you decided you need a piece of my financial pie and went about coming in my house to confiscate it for yourself, I'd be justified in a court of law for putting a nice grouping in your chest to stop you. Why should the gubmint be able to do by force what citizens are not allowed to by gubmint law?

Get it thru your head. A person's possessions belongs to them and they can do with it what they will and can give it to whoever they choose. You are not entitled to it if they don't want you to have it and the gubmint shouldn't be able to take it by force and give it to you. If they do.......what are you going to give in return?

gifting and estate taxes are separate issues. and since the gun falls under the limit, its not taxed anyway. try again......

also, if you wanted to legally pass on your estate and it was over the $5M threshold, go hire and lawyer and he will be able to limit the estate taxes. stop making excuses.

You don't know anything about the death tax and how it pertains to your estate, do you? Everything you own to include: collectables, old hand me down possessions, bank accounts, IRAs, pensions, annuities, home, business, stocks, bonds, etc. ... EVERYTHING of financial value you own, gets assessed and taxed. If all you've obtained at the end of your life happens to add up to $1 million (in some states), you will be slapped with a hefty death tax. Why do we hear about families having trouble receiving farms that their family has owned, because the government wants to receive a greedy cut on all their assets to include land value?

Big Government is always looking to create and maintain a people that depends upon them to supply their needs, they can not STAND to see anyone reach beyond their "middle class" status. Big Government enjoys putting citizens under their thumb of control, and love it when the poor can't make it beyond their status. Less income means greater control the government can maintain over you out of "dependency". I like to refer to this type of fixation as the "pacifier" entitlement system, and Big Government LOVES it because it means greater Government power and less individual freedoms. In other words, you become an addict to Big Government dependency, and the Federal Government becomes your dealer for that next "big FIX".

The enemy to any Big Government dependency is: (1) hard work, (2) education, and (3) accepting personal responsibility. If you're not successful at obtaining financial independence and personal freedom, it's because you are lacking in one of the three.

 

[uscitizen]

Ahh the difference between state death tax and federal death tax.

Most can get out pf paying federal inheritance tax but not so easy in many states for their tax.
Something you need to work on on a satate level. Or do you think the feds should mandate that to the states as well?

 

[thereisnospoon]

do you trust warrent buffett? he actually backs the estates tax
Buffett backs estate tax, decries wealth gap | Reuters

buffet never saw a tax he didn't like. Buffet and lefties like him on the upper end of the economic ladder view taxation as a means to reduce disposable income among the great unwashed masses. The less cash we have, the less freedom we have. The less freedom, the more comfortable the rich lib elites feel. Buffet is a piece of dead skin off a dead cats nut sack.

 

[Agit8r]

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise" -- Thomas Jefferson; letter to James Madison (October 28, 1785)

 

[thereisnospoon]

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise" -- Thomas Jefferson; letter to James Madison (October 28, 1785)

So we can count on your support of confiscatory inheritance taxes?
I would like to know what right the federal government has in the taking of property that undoubtedly has been taxed many times over just because someone had the wherewithal to safeguard and put it good use before they passed from this life?
Why should a family farm for example have to be sold off to donate 55% of the proceeds to the federal government?
Why should a husband and wife who busted their asses to accumulate an estate to pass on to their children see over half of it land in the hands of government bureaucrats who will then take that money and spend it on utter nonsense?
A word of caution.....If you want you head bitten off and treated as spewtum, give me that "civic duty" or "the price of freedom" bullshit....

 

[Agit8r]

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise" -- Thomas Jefferson; letter to James Madison (October 28, 1785)

So we can count on your support of confiscatory inheritance taxes?
I would like to know what right the federal government has in the taking of property that undoubtedly has been taxed many times over just because someone had the wherewithal to safeguard and put it good use before they passed from this life?
Why should a family farm for example have to be sold off to donate 55% of the proceeds to the federal government?
Why should a husband and wife who busted their asses to accumulate an estate to pass on to their children see over half of it land in the hands of government bureaucrats who will then take that money and spend it on utter nonsense?
A word of caution.....If you want you head bitten off and treated as spewtum, give me that "civic duty" or "the price of freedom" bullshit....

Don't forget that the Parliament that oppressed the colonists were members of a landed aristocracy, so this was a great concern to the likes of Jefferson. I don't think that a flat 55% rate is fair or conducive to "the great object." A progressive rate like that that Jefferson speaks of would be far better.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise" -- Thomas Jefferson; letter to James Madison (October 28, 1785)

So we can count on your support of confiscatory inheritance taxes?
I would like to know what right the federal government has in the taking of property that undoubtedly has been taxed many times over just because someone had the wherewithal to safeguard and put it good use before they passed from this life?
Why should a family farm for example have to be sold off to donate 55% of the proceeds to the federal government?
Why should a husband and wife who busted their asses to accumulate an estate to pass on to their children see over half of it land in the hands of government bureaucrats who will then take that money and spend it on utter nonsense?
A word of caution.....If you want you head bitten off and treated as spewtum, give me that "civic duty" or "the price of freedom" bullshit....

Don't forget that the Parliament that oppressed the colonists were members of a landed aristocracy, so this was a great concern to the likes of Jefferson. I don't think that a flat 55% rate is fair or conducive to "the great object." A progressive rate like that that Jefferson speaks of would be far better.

Of course it would. However, try convincing those in the class envy and war on wealth people on the political Left.

 

[Agit8r]

So we can count on your support of confiscatory inheritance taxes?
I would like to know what right the federal government has in the taking of property that undoubtedly has been taxed many times over just because someone had the wherewithal to safeguard and put it good use before they passed from this life?
Why should a family farm for example have to be sold off to donate 55% of the proceeds to the federal government?
Why should a husband and wife who busted their asses to accumulate an estate to pass on to their children see over half of it land in the hands of government bureaucrats who will then take that money and spend it on utter nonsense?
A word of caution.....If you want you head bitten off and treated as spewtum, give me that "civic duty" or "the price of freedom" bullshit....

Don't forget that the Parliament that oppressed the colonists were members of a landed aristocracy, so this was a great concern to the likes of Jefferson. I don't think that a flat 55% rate is fair or conducive to "the great object." A progressive rate like that that Jefferson speaks of would be far better.

Of course it would. However, try convincing those in the class envy and war on wealth people on the political Left.

What war on wealth? The truly wealthy are able to weasel out of these things by their use of the law-craft

 

[thereisnospoon]

Don't forget that the Parliament that oppressed the colonists were members of a landed aristocracy, so this was a great concern to the likes of Jefferson. I don't think that a flat 55% rate is fair or conducive to "the great object." A progressive rate like that that Jefferson speaks of would be far better.

Of course it would. However, try convincing those in the class envy and war on wealth people on the political Left.

What war on wealth? The truly wealthy are able to weasel out of these things by their use of the law-craft

Please!!! Stop the MSM whiny assed class envy cry me a river crapola.
Every news cycle that contains a story about taxes it is replete with the class envy buzzwords of the day. "CEO" "profit" "business" "Corporate" "wealth(y)", "suburban", etc. ad nauseum.
IN our local lib news rag here an assistant editor came right out and stated she "hated the rich".....She was writing an article in particular of one Howard Levine, CEO of Dollar General Stores...
So you want to tell me there's no war on the wealthy?. You may have some of these other people fooled, but......try re-setting your alarm clock there sunshine.

 

[Cuyo]

That's right.........because upon his death he bequeathed it to his family. Where in the constitution does it say that when you die, the government is entitled to your wealth? If you had no living relatives and you had no will directing a charity or something to leave your wealth to, I could see the government taking it. But if you direct for your wealth to remain within your family, there is no logical reason for the government to demand a piece of it other than they can take it by force.

An income tax is not mentioned by name in the Constitution, either. Neither is the Air Force or the Department of Homeland Security. Something does not need to be mentioned by name in order to be constitutionally compliant. With regards to the government being entitled to a percentage of certain estates upon death, that can be found in the federal register as I stated.

Constitutionally Compliant is exactly what the Supreme Court says it is, no more, no less, and only until the Court revises it. That is our system, not original Intent, but Constructive Interpretation and Law. Kind of arbitrary, with no means to challenge the Court.

The post to which I responded was arbitrary. This has been the catch-all for the right (around here anyway) lately - To mention a policy with which you don't agree and simply ask where it was authorized in the COTUS. The COTUS does not need to specifically authorize every program that is enacted, and that's the point I was making. We have a vast body of laws which are required to lay within the authorized groundwork of the Constitution, and they have the force of law in this country even if they're unpopular.

God knows I don't agree with every decision handed down by SCOTUS, but unfortunately until we change the Constitution, you are correct and there's no "means to challenge the Court." The Court is the final challenge, and the final say-so.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If what Barney Frank says is true, that what you inherit isn't worked for thus should be taxed at 55%, what does that say about what the government gets in taxes from us?

The government didn't work for it. Why do they feel they have a right to all of that money? This assumes that what we didn't actually work for automatically belongs to the government.

This is why Barney Frank's argument is wrong. You shouldn't be taxed higher just because, in his opinion, you didn't work for it. As long as it's legal it doesn't matter how you got it. What right does he have to decide the level of taxation according to how it was obtained?

Watch the video:

Barney Frank and his hypocrisy

The number one goal of Marxism is the removal of private property. The ownership of all property by the government.

I think we're seeing this in Barney Frank.

Mud you know the government works hard. They have to carry those 1500 to 2000 page bills they created to created more tax revenue and that is a lot of hard work.

 

[thereisnospoon]

An income tax is not mentioned by name in the Constitution, either. Neither is the Air Force or the Department of Homeland Security. Something does not need to be mentioned by name in order to be constitutionally compliant. With regards to the government being entitled to a percentage of certain estates upon death, that can be found in the federal register as I stated.

Constitutionally Compliant is exactly what the Supreme Court says it is, no more, no less, and only until the Court revises it. That is our system, not original Intent, but Constructive Interpretation and Law. Kind of arbitrary, with no means to challenge the Court.

The post to which I responded was arbitrary. This has been the catch-all for the right (around here anyway) lately - To mention a policy with which you don't agree and simply ask where it was authorized in the COTUS. The COTUS does not need to specifically authorize every program that is enacted, and that's the point I was making. We have a vast body of laws which are required to lay within the authorized groundwork of the Constitution, and they have the force of law in this country even if they're unpopular.

God knows I don't agree with every decision handed down by SCOTUS, but unfortunately until we change the Constitution, you are correct and there's no "means to challenge the Court." The Court is the final challenge, and the final say-so.

You're wrong. The function of the Judicial Branch is also explained and defined in the US Constitution.
The JB exists as a place where the people or a person may for example, find redress, to question or even challenge a law he or she views as unjust or to challenge the majority when the minority is harmed by one of the other branches or in other instances.
It is NOT the function of the Supreme Court to make new law or change the US Constitution. Lastly, the SC is NOT a "final authority" nor does it have a "final say so".

Now, to get to the point....In your OWN words, why do you think the federal government should have the right to confiscate a majority of a deceased person's estate upon that person's passing? For what purpose should this confiscation take place?
Is there a moral purpose to the surrender of a large portion of an estate to government?
Please answer these questions as I am very interested to know how the other side of this issue views this.
Again, please use your own words and your own ideas. I am not interested in a link to someone else's view. I request YOUR view.

 

[Cuyo]

Constitutionally Compliant is exactly what the Supreme Court says it is, no more, no less, and only until the Court revises it. That is our system, not original Intent, but Constructive Interpretation and Law. Kind of arbitrary, with no means to challenge the Court.

The post to which I responded was arbitrary. This has been the catch-all for the right (around here anyway) lately - To mention a policy with which you don't agree and simply ask where it was authorized in the COTUS. The COTUS does not need to specifically authorize every program that is enacted, and that's the point I was making. We have a vast body of laws which are required to lay within the authorized groundwork of the Constitution, and they have the force of law in this country even if they're unpopular.

God knows I don't agree with every decision handed down by SCOTUS, but unfortunately until we change the Constitution, you are correct and there's no "means to challenge the Court." The Court is the final challenge, and the final say-so.

You're wrong. The function of the Judicial Branch is also explained and defined in the US Constitution.
The JB exists as a place where the people or a person may for example, find redress, to question or even challenge a law he or she views as unjust or to challenge the majority when the minority is harmed by one of the other branches or in other instances.
It is NOT the function of the Supreme Court to make new law or change the US Constitution. Lastly, the SC is NOT a "final authority" nor does it have a "final say so".

Other than the last sentence here, your post is entirely consistent with mine. And yes, in legal matters, the SC is the final authority; There is no higher court to which you can appeal. And I've said nothing close to claiming SCOTUS should make laws or change the constitution.

Now, to get to the point....In your OWN words, why do you think the federal government should have the right to confiscate a majority of a deceased person's estate upon that person's passing? For what purpose should this confiscation take place?
Is there a moral purpose to the surrender of a large portion of an estate to government?
Please answer these questions as I am very interested to know how the other side of this issue views this.
Again, please use your own words and your own ideas. I am not interested in a link to someone else's view. I request YOUR view.

I virtually never post links to other peoples' opinions. I will post links to back up argument factually if deemed appropriate or asked for.
I think I've made my point rather clear already. We live in a system of commons, which have to be paid for. There are various taxes levied to pay for these commons, and the estate of deceased individuals is only one of them. It's no more "Confiscation" than an income tax or any other tax. The federal government clearly has the authority ('Right') to tax, enumerated in the COTUS - Nobody questions that - And although the estate tax is not mentioned by name, neither is the income tax or any other tax. But it clearly falls within the permitted groundwork.

Are you asking why I approve on principle? I never really said I did if you read carefully, but since you asked I'm glad to tell you.

First of all, it's clearly new, unearned income to the heirs. Saying it ain't so don't make it not so. It's money, that you're receiving, that you didn't have before. As such it should be taxed same as any other new money.

Second, wealth concentration gives to aristocracy and ultimately class revolution. This has brought about the fall of many a great society in the past. As conservative icon Winston Churchill [An estate tax proponent] once said, it's a protection from the establishment of a "race of idle rich." The current provisions allow the first $5M to pass through untouched, then just 35% of the amount in excess - Hardly "Confiscating the 'Majority'" of anyones estate. $5M alone is plenty to pad the upcoming generation.

Third, we are in a horrid deficit cycle, along with horrid economic turbulence. If we're going to give tax relief to anyone, I don't appreciate doing so in a way that gives 100% of the benefit to the top 3 in 1000 people.

Ideologues will tell you that taxes on anyone hurt everyone. That's a lie. If you are against estate tax or any other tax strictly on principle (Because, honestly, I doubt there's a single member here who will have to worry about an estate tax), I ask only that you not ignore the end-result of the enforcement of that principle.

 

[editec]

bOO HOO HOO!

We Cannot MAKE IT STARTING OUT WITH ONLY $5,000,000!

HELP US! HELP US! WE'RE RICH!

 

[thereisnospoon]

The post to which I responded was arbitrary. This has been the catch-all for the right (around here anyway) lately - To mention a policy with which you don't agree and simply ask where it was authorized in the COTUS. The COTUS does not need to specifically authorize every program that is enacted, and that's the point I was making. We have a vast body of laws which are required to lay within the authorized groundwork of the Constitution, and they have the force of law in this country even if they're unpopular.

God knows I don't agree with every decision handed down by SCOTUS, but unfortunately until we change the Constitution, you are correct and there's no "means to challenge the Court." The Court is the final challenge, and the final say-so.

You're wrong. The function of the Judicial Branch is also explained and defined in the US Constitution.
The JB exists as a place where the people or a person may for example, find redress, to question or even challenge a law he or she views as unjust or to challenge the majority when the minority is harmed by one of the other branches or in other instances.
It is NOT the function of the Supreme Court to make new law or change the US Constitution. Lastly, the SC is NOT a "final authority" nor does it have a "final say so".

Other than the last sentence here, your post is entirely consistent with mine. And yes, in legal matters, the SC is the final authority; There is no higher court to which you can appeal. And I've said nothing close to claiming SCOTUS should make laws or change the constitution.

Now, to get to the point....In your OWN words, why do you think the federal government should have the right to confiscate a majority of a deceased person's estate upon that person's passing? For what purpose should this confiscation take place?
Is there a moral purpose to the surrender of a large portion of an estate to government?
Please answer these questions as I am very interested to know how the other side of this issue views this.
Again, please use your own words and your own ideas. I am not interested in a link to someone else's view. I request YOUR view.

I virtually never post links to other peoples' opinions. I will post links to back up argument factually if deemed appropriate or asked for.
I think I've made my point rather clear already. We live in a system of commons, which have to be paid for. There are various taxes levied to pay for these commons, and the estate of deceased individuals is only one of them. It's no more "Confiscation" than an income tax or any other tax. The federal government clearly has the authority ('Right') to tax, enumerated in the COTUS - Nobody questions that - And although the estate tax is not mentioned by name, neither is the income tax or any other tax. But it clearly falls within the permitted groundwork.

Are you asking why I approve on principle? I never really said I did if you read carefully, but since you asked I'm glad to tell you.

First of all, it's clearly new, unearned income to the heirs. Saying it ain't so don't make it not so. It's money, that you're receiving, that you didn't have before. As such it should be taxed same as any other new money.

Second, wealth concentration gives to aristocracy and ultimately class revolution. This has brought about the fall of many a great society in the past. As conservative icon Winston Churchill [An estate tax proponent] once said, it's a protection from the establishment of a "race of idle rich." The current provisions allow the first $5M to pass through untouched, then just 35% of the amount in excess - Hardly "Confiscating the 'Majority'" of anyones estate. $5M alone is plenty to pad the upcoming generation.

Third, we are in a horrid deficit cycle, along with horrid economic turbulence. If we're going to give tax relief to anyone, I don't appreciate doing so in a way that gives 100% of the benefit to the top 3 in 1000 people.

Ideologues will tell you that taxes on anyone hurt everyone. That's a lie. If you are against estate tax or any other tax strictly on principle (Because, honestly, I doubt there's a single member here who will have to worry about an estate tax), I ask only that you not ignore the end-result of the enforcement of that principle.

Ok. Good middle of the road non-obtrusive answers.
You did not answer the question as to why yoy think politicians are entitled to take this money and for what purpose.
I think your concept that inherited money is "new" money is false. Truth is those earnings and savings have been taxed many times over. By writing death tax laws, government gives itself another bite at the apple.
The deficit is not the fault of dead people. it is caused by overspending by politicians who take no care in stewardship of the people's money. Clearly with the idea of a blank check, Washington has piled up debt that is not only irresponsible it borders on the criminal. Reason? Let's let you and I try the same thing. Rack up debt ten or 100 times your ability to repay, then simply declare the debt to be an "IOU"....That'll get by for sure.
Lastly. Not all wealth is cash. In fact most instances wealth is in property, businesses or material objects such as heirlooms, collectables and such.
A person's entire estate is subject to examination for the death tax.
I gave an example which many of the high tax proponents conveniently ignore.
On principle, i believe the death tax people have two reasons to support it. Jealousy and entitlement.
The bottom line here is government cannot be trusted with fiscal responsibility.
Every day, people like Barney Frank think up new ways to confiscate our earnings. Now that in and of itself would not necessarily be a bad thing. The galling part of this is what government does with the money once they get their greedy paws on it.
You will never get me to agree the government is right to confiscate a large portion of a lifetime's work.

 

[thereisnospoon]

bOO HOO HOO!

We Cannot MAKE IT STARTING OUT WITH ONLY $5,000,000!

HELP US! HELP US! WE'RE RICH!

class envy.

 

[Big Fitz]

bOO HOO HOO!

We Cannot MAKE IT STARTING OUT WITH ONLY $5,000,000!

HELP US! HELP US! WE'RE RICH!

class envy.

Too bad we hear too much:

Boo Hoo!
They have more money than me!
I want some or at least you not to have it!