CDZ Should there be a Federal inheritance tax?

[Slyhunter]

For the record...the kid who inherits a billion dollars is not a parasite...he is not taking anything from the government....he is in fact paying his way...the ones not paying their way are the ones who take from the government without paying anything in taxes.....

He's a lottery winner.

 

[2aguy]

... I suggest you watch The Pirates of Silicon Valley for starters and then read the real story. Research though, I'm guessing for you, is not one of your strong suits.

The economic argument in favor of the Federal inheritance tax is that when rich kids born with silver spoons in their mouths inherit millions then all they do is smoke dope and snort coke and travel around the world and they do not do anything productive so they become parasites upon society.

The real reason for the Federal inheritance tax is simply for revenue. It is like the sin taxes -- alcohol excise tax and tobacco excise tax etc.

Rich kids who smoke dope own that money..not the government...they could take it into the street and just burn it if they wanted...it is theirs, not a greedy, corrupt politician who screws underage interns, sells his office for bribes and influence, and spends your money on himself...

which is worse?

Why, because they won the lottery and was born to rich parents? Inheritance tax is an equalizer for those not so lucky being born to poor parents.

Not your call.......you guys fill mass graves to equalize society......

 

[2aguy]

For the record...the kid who inherits a billion dollars is not a parasite...he is not taking anything from the government....he is in fact paying his way...the ones not paying their way are the ones who take from the government without paying anything in taxes.....

He's a lottery winner.

So. Their parent's or whoever left them the money....that money belonged to them....not the government, not you.....it is theirs to do with as they wish......you guys hate them because you are jealous....

 

[Slyhunter]

For the record...the kid who inherits a billion dollars is not a parasite...he is not taking anything from the government....he is in fact paying his way...the ones not paying their way are the ones who take from the government without paying anything in taxes.....

He's a lottery winner.

So. Their parent's or whoever left them the money....that money belonged to them....not the government, not you.....it is theirs to do with as they wish......you guys hate them because you are jealous....

But the kid won the lottery by being born to those parents. The kid did nothing to deserve those parents. Are you saying kids of poverty stricken welfare mothers deserve it? Or simply lost the lottery.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For the record...the kid who inherits a billion dollars is not a parasite...he is not taking anything from the government....he is in fact paying his way...the ones not paying their way are the ones who take from the government without paying anything in taxes.....

He's a lottery winner.

So. Their parent's or whoever left them the money....that money belonged to them....not the government, not you.....it is theirs to do with as they wish......you guys hate them because you are jealous....

But the kid won the lottery by being born to those parents. The kid did nothing to deserve those parents. Are you saying kids of poverty stricken welfare mothers deserve it? Or simply lost the lottery.

The kid did nothing to deserve those parents.

So what?

 

[Slyhunter]

For the record...the kid who inherits a billion dollars is not a parasite...he is not taking anything from the government....he is in fact paying his way...the ones not paying their way are the ones who take from the government without paying anything in taxes.....

He's a lottery winner.

So. Their parent's or whoever left them the money....that money belonged to them....not the government, not you.....it is theirs to do with as they wish......you guys hate them because you are jealous....

But the kid won the lottery by being born to those parents. The kid did nothing to deserve those parents. Are you saying kids of poverty stricken welfare mothers deserve it? Or simply lost the lottery.

The kid did nothing to deserve those parents.

So what?

He didn't earn it, tax the shit out of it to even the playing field for those who were unlucky and born to poor parents.

 

[320 Years of History]

He didn't earn it, tax the shit out of it to even the playing field for those who were unlucky and born to poor parents.

I can assure you that taxing the bejesus out of an inheritance will not level the playing field, as you put it. People who are fortunate to have been "to the manor born" have so many more advantages beyond the inheritance itself that the inheritance tax is but an annoyance and indignity, not a "field leveler." It's not even enough of one to help level the field.

 

[Michelle420]

• There should never be an inheritance tax. The assets inherited were taxed when the decedent bought/used them. Some of them, like real property and in some states personal property, will be taxed when the inheritor uses/retains ownership of them. In the case of real property, business property and some personal property, when the inheritor sells it, s/he will be taxed federally on the gain on sale, thus taxed twice for the same property.
• A federal inheritance tax is tantamount to there being a federal sales tax. I suppose if one thinks there should be such a thing, it stands to reason that one's principle would find acceptable a federal inheritance tax.
• Even if there is a federal inheritance tax, the point at which it "kicks in" should be $50M or higher, or it should be graduated based on locality. Folks who have net wealth below $50M, though they may be well off, aren't in many cases inordinately rich, most especially if they live in high COLA locales.
• "Rich uncle" dilemma -- If I die and leave significant shares of my estate to a poor person who lacks the money to pay the inheritance tax, that person will be forced to sell the property in order to pay the inheritance tax. The result of that is that rather than realizing the full benefit of whatever they inherit, they will only realize a portion of it. In some cases the value of ownership is worth more than the value of cash received on a sale of the property involved.
  
  For example, if the property is commercial land and buildings, that is potentially or already income producing property. Owning it gives one the opportunity to be a capitalist, which is precisely what one should strive to be in a capitalist society. By being forced to sell the property in order to pay an inheritance tax, a recipient is denied part of what their benefactor intended to provide for them.
  
  Another example: If one is bequeathed a valuable object having sentimental value, perhaps a family or personal heirloom, why should one have to sell it to pay an inheritance tax on it? That's just wrong.

No.

 

[320 Years of History]

• There should never be an inheritance tax. The assets inherited were taxed when the decedent bought/used them. Some of them, like real property and in some states personal property, will be taxed when the inheritor uses/retains ownership of them. In the case of real property, business property and some personal property, when the inheritor sells it, s/he will be taxed federally on the gain on sale, thus taxed twice for the same property.
• A federal inheritance tax is tantamount to there being a federal sales tax. I suppose if one thinks there should be such a thing, it stands to reason that one's principle would find acceptable a federal inheritance tax.
• Even if there is a federal inheritance tax, the point at which it "kicks in" should be $50M or higher, or it should be graduated based on locality. Folks who have net wealth below $50M, though they may be well off, aren't in many cases inordinately rich, most especially if they live in high COLA locales.
• "Rich uncle" dilemma -- If I die and leave significant shares of my estate to a poor person who lacks the money to pay the inheritance tax, that person will be forced to sell the property in order to pay the inheritance tax. The result of that is that rather than realizing the full benefit of whatever they inherit, they will only realize a portion of it. In some cases the value of ownership is worth more than the value of cash received on a sale of the property involved.
  
  For example, if the property is commercial land and buildings, that is potentially or already income producing property. Owning it gives one the opportunity to be a capitalist, which is precisely what one should strive to be in a capitalist society. By being forced to sell the property in order to pay an inheritance tax, a recipient is denied part of what their benefactor intended to provide for them.
  
  Another example: If one is bequeathed a valuable object having sentimental value, perhaps a family or personal heirloom, why should one have to sell it to pay an inheritance tax on it? That's just wrong.

No.

??? No what? Could you be a bit clearer, please?

 

[Michelle420]

No Inheritance tax ever.

 

[BlackSand]

He didn't earn it, tax the shit out of it to even the playing field for those who were unlucky and born to poor parents.

The unlucky haven't done anything to earn or deserve it either ... So that doesn't matter.

.

 

[320 Years of History]

No Inheritance tax ever.

Okay. TY for the clarification.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For the record...the kid who inherits a billion dollars is not a parasite...he is not taking anything from the government....he is in fact paying his way...the ones not paying their way are the ones who take from the government without paying anything in taxes.....

He's a lottery winner.

So. Their parent's or whoever left them the money....that money belonged to them....not the government, not you.....it is theirs to do with as they wish......you guys hate them because you are jealous....

But the kid won the lottery by being born to those parents. The kid did nothing to deserve those parents. Are you saying kids of poverty stricken welfare mothers deserve it? Or simply lost the lottery.

The kid did nothing to deserve those parents.

So what?

He didn't earn it, tax the shit out of it to even the playing field for those who were unlucky and born to poor parents.

He didn't earn it

The government didn't earn it.

tax the shit out of it to even the playing field for those who were unlucky and born to poor parents

Where in the Constitution does the government have the power to "even the playing field"?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No.

In fact there should be no income tax on retirement accounts or any taxes levied on anyone in retirement.

 

[BlackSand]

But the kid won the lottery by being born to those parents. The kid did nothing to deserve those parents. Are you saying kids of poverty stricken welfare mothers deserve it? Or simply lost the lottery.

How about we poke out everyone's eyes since some people are blind ... Think that would even the playing field for the unlucky?

.

 

[320 Years of History]

He's a lottery winner.

So. Their parent's or whoever left them the money....that money belonged to them....not the government, not you.....it is theirs to do with as they wish......you guys hate them because you are jealous....

But the kid won the lottery by being born to those parents. The kid did nothing to deserve those parents. Are you saying kids of poverty stricken welfare mothers deserve it? Or simply lost the lottery.

The kid did nothing to deserve those parents.

So what?

He didn't earn it, tax the shit out of it to even the playing field for those who were unlucky and born to poor parents.

He didn't earn it

The government didn't earn it.

tax the shit out of it to even the playing field for those who were unlucky and born to poor parents

Where in the Constitution does the government have the power to "even the playing field"?

Red:
"Evened playing fields" aren't expressly addressed in the Constitution. The concept nonetheless is a basic tenet of any egalitarian society. Accordingly, the only way to legally incorporate the concept into jurisprudence is through court decisions.

There are two court decisions of which I'm aware that address the concept of "level playing fields."

• Davis v. Federal Election Comm’n
• Buckley v. Valeo

One can read the decisions and dissents to get some sense of the constitutionality of actions/laws pursued for the purpose of "evening the playing field." Additionally, one may look at the Court's most recent Affirmative Action decision as one that supports the idea of a "level playing field."

 

[GaryDog]

• There should never be an inheritance tax. The assets inherited were taxed when the decedent bought/used them. Some of them, like real property and in some states personal property, will be taxed when the inheritor uses/retains ownership of them. In the case of real property, business property and some personal property, when the inheritor sells it, s/he will be taxed federally on the gain on sale, thus taxed twice for the same property.
• .

This is a rather misleading statement. It suggests capital gains is "double taxation", which simply is not true.

 

[Michelle420]

There should be no fed tax on any money or property someone inherits. It's already been taxed why should it be taxed again?

 

[BlackSand]

Red:
"Evened playing fields" aren't expressly addressed in the Constitution. The concept nonetheless is a basic tenet of any egalitarian society. Accordingly, the only way to legally incorporate the concept into jurisprudence is through court decisions.

There are two court decisions of which I'm aware that address the concept of "level playing fields."

• Davis v. Federal Election Comm’n
• Buckley v. Valeo

One can read the decisions and dissents to get some sense of the constitutionality of actions/laws pursued for the purpose of "evening the playing field." Additionally, one may look at the Court's most recent Affirmative Action decision as one that supports the idea of a "level playing field."

Lolz ... Thanks for the links.
It's interesting to see what people with the desire and wherewithal to pursue the measures are willing to take all the way to the Supreme Court.

I still don't think that is the "leveling of the playing field" most proponents of the concept are interested in ... Especially in regards to "grave robbery".

.

 

[Syriusly]

In all of the discourse over income inequality, there has not been much focus on inherited wealth. I just read Bernie Sanders 13 point plan for income redistribution. Here is what he proposed for a Federal inheritance tax:

"He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million."

To me that seems a rather high bar for money that was "not earned". If you are tapping that income pool, why would you not go after the much larger percentage of Americans that inherited, say, more than $1 million? Or less? Or is inherited money, under all circumstances, off limits? This is one area where I COULD support a new Federal tax.

IF and only IF it were possible to take Federal inheritance tax money and DIRECTLY use all of it for a specific purpose such as reduction of college tuition and/or skills training, I would support it. I would pick a low percentage, around 10% and a level of $1 million with specific language in the law that it NEVER increases in percentage or inheritance amount. No inflation or other adjustments allowed.

What do you think? Should the IRS tax code be modified to tax inherited money, and if so at what level, and what percentage and why? How would you ensure that the inheritance tax money DIRECTLY benefited the poor?

First of all it is important to recognize no one likes to pay taxes- and most people would prefer to pay less than more.

Also that there is nothing inherently 'good' about income taxes or 'sales taxes' or bad about 'inheritance taxes'- they are all taxes.

I would prefer a 'wealth' tax rather than an income tax or sales tax, and an inheritance tax is a wealth tax- on someone who is no longer alive.

So yes- I am for a very progressive inheritance tax.