CDZ Should there be a Federal inheritance tax?

[MarathonMike]

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?

 

[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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No.

 

[The Irish Ram]

It's bullshit. You work all your life to leave your children better off than you were, and the government waltzes in and helps them self. We have farms here that have been in the family since the Revolution. NOW the children are having to sell the property just to pay what the government says is their share. Theft is what a death tax is. It is what happens when the government spends with impunity. They tax you unto death and after. It needs to stop.

 

[Kosh]

No..

Of course the income tax was supposed to be temporary and to pay for WWII..

 

[Harry Dresden]

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?

i would rather my kids get it than the fucking govt....
To me that seems a rather high bar for money that was "not earned".
what if that business had the kids working in it,learning it so they can take it over?....would this not be an inheritance that was earned?...

 

[MarathonMike]

Here is an excerpt from the Revenue Act of 1916 pertaining to Estate Tax:
Tax rates were graduated from 1 percent on
the first $50,000 to 10 percent on the portion exceeding $5 million.

So that is an example precisely why I WOULD NOT support an inheritance tax because there is no way to limit "tax creep". IF there were a way that would be the only way I would support it. But there is no way.

 

[jwoodie]

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.

The only inherited assets that are double taxed are cash accounts. The others are usually appreciated assets which avoid capital gains taxes through a stepped up cost basis for the beneficiaries. The only taxes they ever pay are for capital gains while they owned the assets, not during the life of the decedent. Thus the appreciation of these assets, if sold for their value when inherited, is never taxed.

If capital gains taxes were due upon inheritance, there would be no need for an inheritance tax. Even so, there are plenty of other ways for wealthy individuals to shield their estates from taxes. Private foundations, anyone?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The only inherited assets that are double taxed are cash accounts. The others are usually appreciated assets which avoid capital gains taxes through a stepped up cost basis for the beneficiaries. The only taxes they ever pay are for capital gains while they owned the assets, not during the life of the decedent. Thus the appreciation of these assets, if sold for their value when inherited, is never taxed.

If capital gains taxes were due upon inheritance, there would be no need for an inheritance tax. Even so, there are plenty of other ways for wealthy individuals to shield their estates from taxes. Private foundations, anyone?

Thus the appreciation of these assets, if sold for their value when inherited, is never taxed.
Income taxes were already paid on the money used to buy the stock.

 

[jwoodie]

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.

The only inherited assets that are double taxed are cash accounts. The others are usually appreciated assets which avoid capital gains taxes through a stepped up cost basis for the beneficiaries. The only taxes they ever pay are for capital gains while they owned the assets, not during the life of the decedent. Thus the appreciation of these assets, if sold for their value when inherited, is never taxed.

If capital gains taxes were due upon inheritance, there would be no need for an inheritance tax. Even so, there are plenty of other ways for wealthy individuals to shield their estates from taxes. Private foundations, anyone?

Thus the appreciation of these assets, if sold for their value when inherited, is never taxed.
Income taxes were already paid on the money used to buy the stock.

Do you understand capital gains? I may have paid $10 per share (with after-tax money*), but it is now worth $100 per share. If I sell it, I pay capital gains tax on the $90 gain. If my beneficiaries sell it, they pay no tax on that gain.

*Pre-tax accounts are never taxed at all upon inheritance.

 

[depotoo]

When you say pre-taxed what do you mean?

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.

The only inherited assets that are double taxed are cash accounts. The others are usually appreciated assets which avoid capital gains taxes through a stepped up cost basis for the beneficiaries. The only taxes they ever pay are for capital gains while they owned the assets, not during the life of the decedent. Thus the appreciation of these assets, if sold for their value when inherited, is never taxed.

If capital gains taxes were due upon inheritance, there would be no need for an inheritance tax. Even so, there are plenty of other ways for wealthy individuals to shield their estates from taxes. Private foundations, anyone?

Thus the appreciation of these assets, if sold for their value when inherited, is never taxed.
Income taxes were already paid on the money used to buy the stock.

Do you understand capital gains? I may have paid $10 per share (with after-tax money*), but it is now worth $100 per share. If I sell it, I pay capital gains tax on the $90 gain. If my beneficiaries sell it, they pay no tax on that gain.

*Pre-tax accounts are never taxed at all upon inheritance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The only inherited assets that are double taxed are cash accounts. The others are usually appreciated assets which avoid capital gains taxes through a stepped up cost basis for the beneficiaries. The only taxes they ever pay are for capital gains while they owned the assets, not during the life of the decedent. Thus the appreciation of these assets, if sold for their value when inherited, is never taxed.

If capital gains taxes were due upon inheritance, there would be no need for an inheritance tax. Even so, there are plenty of other ways for wealthy individuals to shield their estates from taxes. Private foundations, anyone?

Thus the appreciation of these assets, if sold for their value when inherited, is never taxed.
Income taxes were already paid on the money used to buy the stock.

Do you understand capital gains? I may have paid $10 per share (with after-tax money*), but it is now worth $100 per share. If I sell it, I pay capital gains tax on the $90 gain. If my beneficiaries sell it, they pay no tax on that gain.

*Pre-tax accounts are never taxed at all upon inheritance.

Do you understand capital gains?

Yes. Do you understand income tax?

If my beneficiaries sell it, they pay no tax on that gain.

Yes. It's awful when the government only gets tax off your income once. Right?

*Pre-tax accounts are never taxed at all upon inheritance.

Who gave you that bit of bad info?

 

[Agit8r]

The whole point of America is that merit should always take precedence over heredity. A high inheritance tax would help accomplish that.

"Admitting that any annual sum, say, for instance, one thousand pounds, is necessary or sufficient for the support of a family, consequently the second thousand is of the nature of a luxury, the third still more so, and by proceeding on, we shall at last arrive at a sum that may not improperly be called a prohibitable luxury. It would be impolitic to set bounds to property acquired by industry, and therefore it is right to place the prohibition beyond the probable acquisition to which industry can extend; but there ought to be a limit to property or the accumulation of it by bequest."
-- Thomas Paine, 'Rights of Man, Part the Second' 1792

 

[2aguy]

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?

Yes..if you are going to be a low life thief.....steal more, not less.......

Why on earth do you want to give corrupt,greedy politicians more money to spend.....we gave them 18 trillion dollars and all you guys do is bitch about what these politicians aren't doing....that they need even more money.....

Do you even think about that dynamic......or is stealing such a part of who you are that the stealing of other people's money is all you care about?

 

[2aguy]

The whole point of America is that merit should always take precedence over heredity. A high inheritance tax would help accomplish that.

"Admitting that any annual sum, say, for instance, one thousand pounds, is necessary or sufficient for the support of a family, consequently the second thousand is of the nature of a luxury, the third still more so, and by proceeding on, we shall at last arrive at a sum that may not improperly be called a prohibitable luxury. It would be impolitic to set bounds to property acquired by industry, and therefore it is right to place the prohibition beyond the probable acquisition to which industry can extend; but there ought to be a limit to property or the accumulation of it by bequest."
-- Thomas Paine, 'Rights of Man, Part the Second' 1792

Wrong.....you earn it you keep it and can give it to your family....why the fuck should we give it to politicians who are corrupt and greedy instead of our on family...so they can use it to enrich their families....

Are you stupid?

 

[Agit8r]

The whole point of America is that merit should always take precedence over heredity. A high inheritance tax would help accomplish that.

"Admitting that any annual sum, say, for instance, one thousand pounds, is necessary or sufficient for the support of a family, consequently the second thousand is of the nature of a luxury, the third still more so, and by proceeding on, we shall at last arrive at a sum that may not improperly be called a prohibitable luxury. It would be impolitic to set bounds to property acquired by industry, and therefore it is right to place the prohibition beyond the probable acquisition to which industry can extend; but there ought to be a limit to property or the accumulation of it by bequest."
-- Thomas Paine, 'Rights of Man, Part the Second' 1792

Wrong.....you earn it you keep it and can give it to your family....why the fuck should we give it to politicians who are corrupt and greedy instead of our on family...so they can use it to enrich their families....

Are you stupid?

Just look at Trump. He has absolutely no merit whatsoever, but society has pampered him just because his grandmother was good at managing money. It's absurd. It's un-American. So is any person that believes that meritless psychopaths should be allowed to inherit great fortunes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The whole point of America is that merit should always take precedence over heredity. A high inheritance tax would help accomplish that.

"Admitting that any annual sum, say, for instance, one thousand pounds, is necessary or sufficient for the support of a family, consequently the second thousand is of the nature of a luxury, the third still more so, and by proceeding on, we shall at last arrive at a sum that may not improperly be called a prohibitable luxury. It would be impolitic to set bounds to property acquired by industry, and therefore it is right to place the prohibition beyond the probable acquisition to which industry can extend; but there ought to be a limit to property or the accumulation of it by bequest."
-- Thomas Paine, 'Rights of Man, Part the Second' 1792

The whole point of America is that merit should always take precedence over heredity.

The government should get some of my stuff, instead of my kids, and that helps merit?

Merit:
the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.

What did the government do to deserve my stuff more than my kids?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The whole point of America is that merit should always take precedence over heredity. A high inheritance tax would help accomplish that.

"Admitting that any annual sum, say, for instance, one thousand pounds, is necessary or sufficient for the support of a family, consequently the second thousand is of the nature of a luxury, the third still more so, and by proceeding on, we shall at last arrive at a sum that may not improperly be called a prohibitable luxury. It would be impolitic to set bounds to property acquired by industry, and therefore it is right to place the prohibition beyond the probable acquisition to which industry can extend; but there ought to be a limit to property or the accumulation of it by bequest."
-- Thomas Paine, 'Rights of Man, Part the Second' 1792

Wrong.....you earn it you keep it and can give it to your family....why the fuck should we give it to politicians who are corrupt and greedy instead of our on family...so they can use it to enrich their families....

Are you stupid?

Just look at Trump. He has absolutely no merit whatsoever, but society has pampered him just because his grandmother was good at managing money. It's absurd. It's un-American. So is any person that believes that meritless psychopaths should be allowed to inherit great fortunes.

He has absolutely no merit whatsoever, but society has pampered him just because his grandmother was good at managing money. It's absurd. It's un-American.

It would be more American for the government to take all that money. DERP!

 

[2aguy]

The whole point of America is that merit should always take precedence over heredity. A high inheritance tax would help accomplish that.

"Admitting that any annual sum, say, for instance, one thousand pounds, is necessary or sufficient for the support of a family, consequently the second thousand is of the nature of a luxury, the third still more so, and by proceeding on, we shall at last arrive at a sum that may not improperly be called a prohibitable luxury. It would be impolitic to set bounds to property acquired by industry, and therefore it is right to place the prohibition beyond the probable acquisition to which industry can extend; but there ought to be a limit to property or the accumulation of it by bequest."
-- Thomas Paine, 'Rights of Man, Part the Second' 1792

Wrong.....you earn it you keep it and can give it to your family....why the fuck should we give it to politicians who are corrupt and greedy instead of our on family...so they can use it to enrich their families....

Are you stupid?

Just look at Trump. He has absolutely no merit whatsoever, but society has pampered him just because his grandmother was good at managing money. It's absurd. It's un-American. So is any person that believes that meritless psychopaths should be allowed to inherit great fortunes.

Trump built a business..moron......he made his money by employing people...the politicians by taking our money and giving it to their friendS for power and influence.....

And you want to give these politicians more money.......,,

You are stupid.

 

[Agit8r]

The whole point of America is that merit should always take precedence over heredity. A high inheritance tax would help accomplish that.

"Admitting that any annual sum, say, for instance, one thousand pounds, is necessary or sufficient for the support of a family, consequently the second thousand is of the nature of a luxury, the third still more so, and by proceeding on, we shall at last arrive at a sum that may not improperly be called a prohibitable luxury. It would be impolitic to set bounds to property acquired by industry, and therefore it is right to place the prohibition beyond the probable acquisition to which industry can extend; but there ought to be a limit to property or the accumulation of it by bequest."
-- Thomas Paine, 'Rights of Man, Part the Second' 1792

The whole point of America is that merit should always take precedence over heredity.

The government should get some of my stuff, instead of my kids, and that helps merit?

Merit:
the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.

What did the government do to deserve my stuff more than my kids?

That's very simplistic thinking. And you are not that rich.