Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
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.
I agree, the idea that the Feds need to take some of your money when you die because "merit" is simplistic.
Bordering on moronic. The low end of moronic.
I'm no financial expert but I'm thinking 401-k Roth IRA, etc.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.
$3.5 million is not so bad a bar. Read through all of our history as to what almost all presidents and the founding fathers said about accumulated wealth. They all concur this is the one thing that will destroy the democracy. In addition, all revolution is driven by a few people having wealth concentrated in their hands while the masses suffer. In all of human history this is the standard reason for revolution. When a country/civilization starts out most people are on an even par and everyone generally follows the rules. Wealth accumulates into the hands of a few and those few then start using the wealth and influence to manipulate the system to drive even more wealth into their hands and lock everyone else out. The people endure this for a time and then once it is bad enough long enough you get revolution. Generally the wealthy are killed and their assets spread out to the population again and the whole process starts over again.
Occupy Wallstreet was a peaceful version of this. But that isn't the end of it. If the society doesn't change through peaceful means then revolution is the result. And all the gnashing of teeth and spouting selfish 'what's mine is mine blah blah blah' won't matter in the end. You step on someone's neck long enough and at some point they will rise up and cut your legs off. And this clock is always ticking. Always. All the poor treatment of people you see in the news doesn't go unnoticed and doesn't go away when you change channel or forget about it. It grows, slowly, silently. There are no humans that are oppressed and think 'oh well I deserve it'. None. All look for a moment to get revenge or 'set things right'. All.
Very nice summary of 320's post!
The merit comes from the person that died. He/she should have a say to who the estate goes based on merit. That merit is passed from generation to generation.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
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?
You win the lottery being born to rich parents you pay the lottery tax once you inherit their money. I see nothing wrong with that.The merit comes from the person that died. He/she should have a say to who the estate goes based on merit. That merit is passed from generation to generation.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
$3.5 million is not so bad a bar. Read through all of our history as to what almost all presidents and the founding fathers said about accumulated wealth. They all concur this is the one thing that will destroy the democracy. In addition, all revolution is driven by a few people having wealth concentrated in their hands while the masses suffer. In all of human history this is the standard reason for revolution. When a country/civilization starts out most people are on an even par and everyone generally follows the rules. Wealth accumulates into the hands of a few and those few then start using the wealth and influence to manipulate the system to drive even more wealth into their hands and lock everyone else out. The people endure this for a time and then once it is bad enough long enough you get revolution. Generally the wealthy are killed and their assets spread out to the population again and the whole process starts over again.
Occupy Wallstreet was a peaceful version of this. But that isn't the end of it. If the society doesn't change through peaceful means then revolution is the result. And all the gnashing of teeth and spouting selfish 'what's mine is mine blah blah blah' won't matter in the end. You step on someone's neck long enough and at some point they will rise up and cut your legs off. And this clock is always ticking. Always. All the poor treatment of people you see in the news doesn't go unnoticed and doesn't go away when you change channel or forget about it. It grows, slowly, silently. There are no humans that are oppressed and think 'oh well I deserve it'. None. All look for a moment to get revenge or 'set things right'. All.
You step on someone's neck long enough and at some point they will rise up and cut your legs off.
Who did Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Ellison have to step on?
Was it a lot of necks.....or just a few?
Or did their parents do the neck stepping?
That's why I asked him, to make certain what he meant.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?
$3.5 million is not so bad a bar. Read through all of our history as to what almost all presidents and the founding fathers said about accumulated wealth. They all concur this is the one thing that will destroy the democracy. In addition, all revolution is driven by a few people having wealth concentrated in their hands while the masses suffer. In all of human history this is the standard reason for revolution. When a country/civilization starts out most people are on an even par and everyone generally follows the rules. Wealth accumulates into the hands of a few and those few then start using the wealth and influence to manipulate the system to drive even more wealth into their hands and lock everyone else out. The people endure this for a time and then once it is bad enough long enough you get revolution. Generally the wealthy are killed and their assets spread out to the population again and the whole process starts over again.
Occupy Wallstreet was a peaceful version of this. But that isn't the end of it. If the society doesn't change through peaceful means then revolution is the result. And all the gnashing of teeth and spouting selfish 'what's mine is mine blah blah blah' won't matter in the end. You step on someone's neck long enough and at some point they will rise up and cut your legs off. And this clock is always ticking. Always. All the poor treatment of people you see in the news doesn't go unnoticed and doesn't go away when you change channel or forget about it. It grows, slowly, silently. There are no humans that are oppressed and think 'oh well I deserve it'. None. All look for a moment to get revenge or 'set things right'. All.
You step on someone's neck long enough and at some point they will rise up and cut your legs off.
Who did Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Ellison have to step on?
Was it a lot of necks.....or just a few?
Or did their parents do the neck stepping?
I wouldn't disagree they did nefarious things as well along the way. Some of them are donating much of their wealth to charity now so it mutes some of the anger they generated along the way.
It is the ones who could not care less about other human beings who wind up causing revolt.
$3.5 million is not so bad a bar. Read through all of our history as to what almost all presidents and the founding fathers said about accumulated wealth. They all concur this is the one thing that will destroy the democracy. In addition, all revolution is driven by a few people having wealth concentrated in their hands while the masses suffer. In all of human history this is the standard reason for revolution. When a country/civilization starts out most people are on an even par and everyone generally follows the rules. Wealth accumulates into the hands of a few and those few then start using the wealth and influence to manipulate the system to drive even more wealth into their hands and lock everyone else out. The people endure this for a time and then once it is bad enough long enough you get revolution. Generally the wealthy are killed and their assets spread out to the population again and the whole process starts over again.
Occupy Wallstreet was a peaceful version of this. But that isn't the end of it. If the society doesn't change through peaceful means then revolution is the result. And all the gnashing of teeth and spouting selfish 'what's mine is mine blah blah blah' won't matter in the end. You step on someone's neck long enough and at some point they will rise up and cut your legs off. And this clock is always ticking. Always. All the poor treatment of people you see in the news doesn't go unnoticed and doesn't go away when you change channel or forget about it. It grows, slowly, silently. There are no humans that are oppressed and think 'oh well I deserve it'. None. All look for a moment to get revenge or 'set things right'. All.
You step on someone's neck long enough and at some point they will rise up and cut your legs off.
Who did Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Ellison have to step on?
Was it a lot of necks.....or just a few?
Or did their parents do the neck stepping?
I wouldn't disagree they did nefarious things as well along the way. Some of them are donating much of their wealth to charity now so it mutes some of the anger they generated along the way.
It is the ones who could not care less about other human beings who wind up causing revolt.
I wouldn't disagree they did nefarious things as well along the way.
What nefarious things?
Some of them are donating much of their wealth to charity now so it mutes some of the anger they generated along the way.
The anger they generated? By making products people willingly purchased? LOL!
$3.5 million is not so bad a bar. Read through all of our history as to what almost all presidents and the founding fathers said about accumulated wealth. They all concur this is the one thing that will destroy the democracy. In addition, all revolution is driven by a few people having wealth concentrated in their hands while the masses suffer. In all of human history this is the standard reason for revolution. When a country/civilization starts out most people are on an even par and everyone generally follows the rules. Wealth accumulates into the hands of a few and those few then start using the wealth and influence to manipulate the system to drive even more wealth into their hands and lock everyone else out. The people endure this for a time and then once it is bad enough long enough you get revolution. Generally the wealthy are killed and their assets spread out to the population again and the whole process starts over again.
Occupy Wallstreet was a peaceful version of this. But that isn't the end of it. If the society doesn't change through peaceful means then revolution is the result. And all the gnashing of teeth and spouting selfish 'what's mine is mine blah blah blah' won't matter in the end. You step on someone's neck long enough and at some point they will rise up and cut your legs off. And this clock is always ticking. Always. All the poor treatment of people you see in the news doesn't go unnoticed and doesn't go away when you change channel or forget about it. It grows, slowly, silently. There are no humans that are oppressed and think 'oh well I deserve it'. None. All look for a moment to get revenge or 'set things right'. All.
You step on someone's neck long enough and at some point they will rise up and cut your legs off.
Who did Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Ellison have to step on?
Was it a lot of necks.....or just a few?
Or did their parents do the neck stepping?
I wouldn't disagree they did nefarious things as well along the way. Some of them are donating much of their wealth to charity now so it mutes some of the anger they generated along the way.
It is the ones who could not care less about other human beings who wind up causing revolt.
I wouldn't disagree they did nefarious things as well along the way.
What nefarious things?
Some of them are donating much of their wealth to charity now so it mutes some of the anger they generated along the way.
The anger they generated? By making products people willingly purchased? LOL!
You don't get so far in this world without angering many along the way. It is the way of the world. If you haven't figured that out yet I can't help you.
You must be completely unaware that there IS ALREADY a Federal inheritance tax.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?
Are you talking about taxing inheritances TWICE?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.
$3.5 million is not so bad a bar. Read through all of our history as to what almost all presidents and the founding fathers said about accumulated wealth. They all concur this is the one thing that will destroy the democracy. In addition, all revolution is driven by a few people having wealth concentrated in their hands while the masses suffer. In all of human history this is the standard reason for revolution. When a country/civilization starts out most people are on an even par and everyone generally follows the rules. Wealth accumulates into the hands of a few and those few then start using the wealth and influence to manipulate the system to drive even more wealth into their hands and lock everyone else out. The people endure this for a time and then once it is bad enough long enough you get revolution. Generally the wealthy are killed and their assets spread out to the population again and the whole process starts over again.
Occupy Wallstreet was a peaceful version of this. But that isn't the end of it. If the society doesn't change through peaceful means then revolution is the result. And all the gnashing of teeth and spouting selfish 'what's mine is mine blah blah blah' won't matter in the end. You step on someone's neck long enough and at some point they will rise up and cut your legs off. And this clock is always ticking. Always. All the poor treatment of people you see in the news doesn't go unnoticed and doesn't go away when you change channel or forget about it. It grows, slowly, silently. There are no humans that are oppressed and think 'oh well I deserve it'. None. All look for a moment to get revenge or 'set things right'. All.
Are you talking about REPEALING the Federal inheritance tax?Sorry......it doesn't belong to the government....they don't get to tell us how much money that we earn actually belongs to us after we pay our taxes on the income.......
And again.....you would prefer this money goes to corrupt politicians who will use it to reward friends and enrich themselves...vs. your own family....that is really what you believe....you want to give the money you earned to politicians...
If you are rich, you can give it all away if you want...no one is stopping you...but no.....you have to tell everyone else what they can do with their own money....
Revolution happens when the government starts taking the money earned by the citizens for it's own good....not theirs.....a flat tax and the free exchange of goods and services will keep revolution away....it is the very corrupt governments you want to enrich that creates the inequality you don't like....
Occupy Wall Street was a rape fest...women had to have protected tents.....
If people are free to use their money as they want....their is no one standing on their neck...is there? When the government starts to enrich itself, and it's minions through the tax policy...then you have revolution....
You step on someone's neck long enough and at some point they will rise up and cut your legs off.
Who did Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Ellison have to step on?
Was it a lot of necks.....or just a few?
Or did their parents do the neck stepping?
I wouldn't disagree they did nefarious things as well along the way. Some of them are donating much of their wealth to charity now so it mutes some of the anger they generated along the way.
It is the ones who could not care less about other human beings who wind up causing revolt.
I wouldn't disagree they did nefarious things as well along the way.
What nefarious things?
Some of them are donating much of their wealth to charity now so it mutes some of the anger they generated along the way.
The anger they generated? By making products people willingly purchased? LOL!
You don't get so far in this world without angering many along the way. It is the way of the world. If you haven't figured that out yet I can't help you.
You don't get so far in this world without angering many along the way.
Apparently ignorant libs are easily angered.
Can you help me with those nefarious things?
Nah you are a derp. 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.
