The Death Tax

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 125
Topic's author
#31
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
I didn’t ask about DC lobbyists, I asked why people like you are so obsessed with Hunter Biden. That’s ok though, I had no expectation of getting a serious answer out of you.

This idea that we’re all operating under this notion that the people in DC care about people like us is just plain stupid. People in DC care about their political careers, taking care of us is how they keep it. I don’t understand what about that is so difficult for you.

Is this 37% thing supposed to be an insult? I don’t get it. 37% is the lowest approval rating Biden has seen, his average is still in the 40’s. Trump never got above 37 except for a brief moment during the “rally around the flag” effect when Covid first broke.
#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
taking care of us is how they keep it.

You misspelled lobbyists.

Democrats have been "taxing the rich" for 50 years and haven't pulled in a notable dime from them. In fact, most of the rich support Democrats because when you buy a tax exemption from a shitbag Democrat, he stays bought.

Your faith in DC borders on the fanatical religious.
#33
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
Rather that it’s good for a worker who saved and invested his entire life to be able to leave behind a sizable estate of one or two million dollars without the government coming in and taking a bite. 
Even if the estate tax was raised to 100% (not saying I think it should be, I don't!) this would still be the case.
#34
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
It’s been 9 months and no “Tax the Rich” bill passed yet. Guess we got donors whispering in quite a few ears 
#35
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Estate taxes ruin incentives for people to build inter-generational wealth. Making a better life for your kids drives many peoples ambitions today the same way it did in the past. 
#36
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Even if the estate tax was raised to 100% (not saying I think it should be, I don't!) this would still be the case.
When people talk about raising the estate tax they often don’t mean keep the current (or in Double_R’s case the pre-2018) threshold that almost no estates qualify for but just raise the rate on those estates. They mean changing the inheritance tax to something akin to the UK where the tax kicks in around $450,000 or France where it kicks in at around $115,000.

This is what I was referring to, which isn’t actually Double_R’s position but is something that a lot of people would support. There are definitely lots of people who don’t believe someone should be able to inherit two million tax free. 
#37
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
Estate taxes ruin incentives for people to build inter-generational wealth
If someone with a net worth of $10 million died, how much of that would be taken by the estate tax under the current system? How much would be taxed if you had complete control over deciding the estate tax?
#38
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
These proposals essentially reduce to "I want their money, and the government should help justify and enforce my stealing it."
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
Hence the "Jealousy" tax.
#40
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
You understand the tax is not for ME personally to use the money, right? Calling it the 'jealousy tax' or making it like I am pro 'stealing someone's money' is a misrepresentation, it implies that you give people a cut of a person's estate to use at their own discretion, like I'm using it to allay my envy of their yacht or whatever.

In reality, what I'm for is taking some portion of what we can call VAST wealth (not 1M dollars, that's not vast wealth, 1B dollars is vast wealth), and having the government use it to do things like fix roads, build schools, etc. Building a school has nothing to do with jealousy. The concept is that their family has already benefited from the life of vast wealth AND have been bequeathed vast wealth as a result (again going with a cap, pick you r number, but yes, this is INCOME and should be subject to tax too), the community at large now benefits from the success that the individual and their family enjoyed, presumably FROM the community. It's not jealousy, it's altruism and it's FOR EVERYONE. And again it doesn't have to be schools or hospitals or whatever else conservatives apparently hate, especially if the person's will endows a fund for abuse victims, builds cost free homes for disaster victims... Not so I can buy a playstation. 


 
#41
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
having the government use it to do things like fix roads,
Sounds like you are jealous of people that can go out for a new sports car with their mommy's credit card every time they hit a pot hole.
#42
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
If the estate tax is a good idea, then tax ALL estates at a flat rate, including people that inherit less than 10,000.

That's a fair tax, not one rooted in jealousy.

government use it to do things like fix roads,

Government doesn't actually "do" anything. It's a middleman that pays for services. The government isn't the only way to fund things. I've seen much better road service funding from online "adopt a pothole" programs.

The idea that nothing gets done without a bloated aristocrat in a government office needs to go by the wayside like the donkey and the cart.
#43
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
For instance, imagine instead of having a bloated government in DC in charge of roads, where the only way to get them to improve the roads is to pay them for all sorts of unrelated stuff just to get them to fund the roads, where the legislation is thousands of pages long and 3 cents of every tax dollar you spend on roads actually goes to roads.

Instead of having this anarchic system, imagine a state elected board where their only job is to do roads. They tax everyone at a flat rate of .5% (or less) tax and all the roads are fully funded at a fair and affordable rate, and most importantly, the system is efficient and accountable. A constitution for the board is written up so that the funds can ONLY be spent on roads. Period.

That would be a huge improvement over the current system.
#44
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I'm not really sure. There isn't a single good answer I'm aware of, because depending on how wealthy one is, the matter of a number amount vs a percentage amount becomes the issue. For someone with ten million, I'd say like 15%
#45
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
That misses the point of the estate tax in the first place: to prevent the creation of a nobility class. It's not about jealousy. It's about an age old conservative value: making something of yourself. Instead of just being lucky to be born into circumstance. And the system I'm proposing doesn't even fully prevent that, it just sets a cap on the amount of capital you can bequeath, providing FURTHER advantage to people who are already advantaged (from having grown up with vast wealth, they'd have gone to better schools, etc.). I'm just demonstrating what you can do with their money once they're gone. 
#46
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ludofl3x
You understand the tax is not for ME personally to use the money, right?
How would its not being subject to your personal use modify, diminish, or discredit Greyparrot's statement?

Calling it the 'jealousy tax' or making it like I am pro 'stealing someone's money' is a misrepresentation, it implies that you give people a cut of a person's estate to use at their own discretion, like I'm using it to allay my envy of their yacht or whatever.
Does one's reasons really matter in the delineation of envy?

In reality, what I'm for is taking some portion of what we can call VAST wealth (not 1M dollars, that's not vast wealth, 1B dollars is vast wealth), and having the government use it to do things like fix roads, build schools, etc.
Note your language: you're for "taking"; not "asking" or "requesting" because this would acknowledge the other party's capacity to deny you.

Building a school has nothing to do with jealousy.
Taking the money of another because you think a school deserves that money more might constitute jealousy.

The concept is that their family has already benefited from the life of vast wealth AND have been bequeathed vast wealth as a result
The extent to which any individual benefits from his or her wealth is the concern of no one else but that individual. Who are you to inform on the benefits one has gained from his/her property, much less suggest a division in how much that person is allowed to benefit from his/her property?

this is INCOME and should be subject to tax too
Why?

the community at large now benefits from the success that the individual and their family enjoyed, presumably FROM the community.
And they're somehow owed a tax? They somehow have a stake in someone else's wealth? Let me ask: teachers can be said to be instrumental in devices and tools an individual learns to be successful in the corporate aspect of the market. Do you pay every single teacher you've ever had some form of due for everything they've taught you? What about people who've given you advice, do you pay them as well? What about restaurateurs who fed you when mom didn't want to or couldn't cook dinner on many evenings? If the people with whom one interacts even had a marginal role in one's success, where does it stop?

It's not jealousy, it's altruism and it's FOR EVERYONE
Even Robin Hood was jealous.

And again it doesn't have to be schools or hospitals or whatever else conservatives apparently hate, especially if the person's will endows a fund for abuse victims, builds cost free homes for disaster victims... Not so I can buy a playstation. 
So you should get to decide the stipulations by which a free individual bequeaths his/her possessions upon his/her death? Sounds pretty jelly to me.
#47
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Government doesn't actually "do" anything. It's a middleman that pays for services. The government isn't the only way to fund things. I've seen much better road service funding from online "adopt a pothole" programs.

The idea that nothing gets done without a bloated aristocrat in a government office needs to go by the wayside like the donkey and the cart.
Well put.
#48
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
That misses the point of the estate tax in the first place: to prevent the creation of a nobility class.

The only way to eliminate people with fortunate circumstances is through force. Enforced equality is something that ALWAYS leads to the nightmare similar to what Pol Pot envisioned. No thanks.
#49
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Instead of having this anarchic system, imagine a state elected board where their only job is to do roads.
I resent that. Government incompetence should never be equated to anarchy.
#50
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ludofl3x
That misses the point of the estate tax in the first place: to prevent the creation of a nobility class.
And why are we preventing the creation of a nobility class?

It's not about jealousy.
Some of it has to be.

It's about an age old conservative value: making something of yourself.
And not making something of one's self means they deserved to get robbed?

Instead of just being lucky to be born into circumstance.
You're sounding really jelly. What makes you think it's luck?

And the system I'm proposing doesn't even fully prevent that, it just sets a cap on the amount of capital you can bequeath, providing FURTHER advantage to people who are already advantaged (from having grown up with vast wealth, they'd have gone to better schools, etc.).
You want some peanut butter with that jelly?

I'm just demonstrating what you can do with their money once they're gone. 
And why is up to you or anyone else to determine what can be done with one's money when prior to that one's death, they've explicitly stated their intentions with it?
#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
I resent that. Government incompetence should never be equated to anarchy.

I'm sorry, I meant to say anachronistic. In the age of go-fund-me, surely there has to be a better way to pay the road crews.
#52
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
You're sounding really jelly. What makes you think it's luck?

Some of it might be luck, some of it might be merit. But in a system of enforced equality, the tree makes no distinction as Pol Pot smashes a noble's skull against the bloody bark.
#53
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
For someone with ten million, I'd say like 15%
Current U.S. estate taxes would tax an estate worth $10million at 0%.

Congratulations, you are in favor of increasing the estate tax.
#54
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I was shooting for something I figured would be less, but 0 is better than what I said.
#55
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Some of it might be luck, some of it might be merit. But in a system of enforced equality, the tree makes no distinction as Pol Pot smashes a noble's skull against the bloody bark.
With respect to inheritance, is there really any part of it that's luck? Let's say for example, a man has generated enough commerce to amass a sizeable wealth. He decides to get married, whether it be for love or arrangement. This wedded couple decides to have three children. The man intends to bequeath all of his possessions including his wealth to those by whom he is survived, i.e. wife and three children. Is this luck? Or is it merely the product of the man and his wife's decisions? Even the births into that wealth, was that luck, or just another product of decision? Whenever I see a statement along the lines, "lucky to be born into wealth," I start craving peanut butter because of all that jelly. The only time I'd consider it "lucky" is if a wealthy woman unknowingly has a sperm cocktail--consisting of specimen from men in all stations of life--shoved up her womb and letting "chance" decide which sperm fertilizes, and which fertilized egg implants itself.
#56
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
He decides to get married, whether it be for love or arrangement.

Hypergamy suggests luck isn't a factor in the calculation of marriage, at least for a woman.

There are no "equal males" when a woman decides to marry.
#57
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Hypergamy suggests luck isn't a factor in the calculation of marriage, at least for a woman.

There are no "equal males" when a woman decides to marry.
All the more reason. If one's mother decided to marry up, then neither the child's birth nor the circumstances in which that child is born is random or lucky.
Topic's author
#58
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Your faith in DC borders on the fanatical religious.
I’m sorry your inability to comprehend logic and how it applies when discussing the impacts that various government policies would have on the overall health of a society leads you to no other option but to reduce everything down to faith in other people and then project that cartoonish oversimplification on everyone else’s arguments. But keep trying, I promise one day you’ll be able to form your own thoughts. I believe in you.

The government isn't the only way to fund things. I've seen much better road service funding from online "adopt a pothole" programs.
If these programs work why haven’t they funded our infrastructure?

In the age of go-fund-me, surely there has to be a better way to pay the road crews.
Well considering that every person in our society benefits in one way or another from roads and bridges, imagine if we found a fair and equitable way to ensure that everyone chipped in rather than relying only on volunteers who were willing to part with their hard earned money while others who would benefit from those contributions not pay a dime?
Topic's author
#59
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
The man intends to bequeath all of his possessions including his wealth to those by whom he is survived, i.e. wife and three children. Is this luck? 
Yes, it’s the poster child example of luck.

We’re not talking about the man who made his fortune, we’re talking about the people who did nothing to help build it but yet will reap all the rewards.
#60
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Yes, it’s the poster child example of luck.
How is that luck?

We’re not talking about the man who made his fortune, we’re talking about the people who did nothing to help build it but yet will reap all the rewards.
Do you know what that's called? A gift. Taxing inheritances because you believe wealth should be excluded--even from one's family--to just the person who generates it, much less provide an "offering" to everyone else should one decide to share his/her wealth with his/her family, is nothing more than jelly for my PB&J sandwich.