Obama's Death Tax

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
It is a death tax

No it is not.

But it sounds pretty bitchin' to say, doesn't it?

English being a living language, "Death Taxes" as a synonym for inheritance taxes or estate taxes or death duties is valid. It is more acccurate than "Life insurance" which is actually insurance against death.

 

[trysail]

That's propaganda, first, it doesn't tax dead people, it taxes live people receiving windfall profits they didn't earn, second, it typically only applies to inherited cash, for which the cutoff will end up being around 1 Mil.

i.e., if you inherit the family farm, the inheritance tax doesn't' apply unless you sell it for cash within a certain amount of time (after which, profits from sale of assets are taxable as capital gains) - the assets, land, equipment, etc., are not taxable any more than they are when you own them.

i.e., if you keep the family business going, you should not be exposed to any significant tax liability, the people who don't like this, and fund all the propaganda about "Death Taxes" are the old money trust funds and foundations, with large amounts of cash, and I mean, large like Tens and Hundreds of millions, and that's why they're trust funds and foundations to begin with.

The above is completely bogus and written by someone with no clue. The assets of a decedant's estate are valued at the date of death and include the value of any "going concerns."


Just this week, I was talking to an in-law who is pulling his hair out trying to figure out how in hell he's going to come up with the cash to pay off the government when his father dies. It's a business that's worth anywhere between $120-240 million depending on the multiple that's attached to its EBITDA. Do any of you folk happen to have $100 million in cash lying around to keep the government from effectively causing its sale?


Foundations? WTF are you talking about? Don't answer that 'cause you've made it perfectly obvious you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about— all you'll end up doing is spreading more disinformation and nonsense.

 

[amicus]

Death Duties, or Inheritance Tax, have been with us in the UK for a long time.

The Tax only used to affect the seriously rich. Over the last thirty years the threshold for the tax to start has been reduced by design and inflation so that a normal family that owns its own home is likely to pay Inheritance Tax.

Inheritance Tax was most iniquitous during the First World War. Many of the landowning classes volunteered all their young men to serve, mainly as officers, on the Western Front. Not only did the fathers, or the sons and heirs die, but their women folk were faced with inheritance tax on the family's property several times over, possibly but rarely to a greater extent than the total value of the estate.

The life expectancy of a junior officer on the Western Front was 9 days. If a dead officer had inherited from an older brother killed earlier on the frontline, the family would be taxed twice when they were still grieving for the first son to die serving his country.

My tax accountants try to keep my estate below the Inheritance Tax threshold. It gets more difficult every year with the increase in house values and the various ways of avoiding the tax being gradually closed off.

Og

~~~

Hello, Oggbashan, most informative and educational posting of yours; my appreciation...

I am going to avoid further discussion of the Inheritance Tax for the moment and approach the contained premise of the redistribution of wealth in general.

On BBC America last evening, there was about a ten minute segment on the economy of Spain and the overtones of an imminent collapse of the nation and a possible move to the Right, which is entirely different that the 'Right' that American's are familiar with.

As I recall details of the program; over the past 30 years, the heavily unionized workforce in Spain has been blessed with high wages and benefits and early, lucrative retirement incomes, paid by the State.

During the same time, the government of Spain has invested public funds heavily into the 'green' economy. This Green economy, it is said, is not cost effective, which means it must be continually supported by government, from the public coffer.

I am sympathetic and understanding of the quest for alternative sources of energy, for conservation of energy, recycling and the entire effort, as long as it is voluntary and operates at a profit, not a loss, profile.

There was a sense of impending doom in the BBC program, with intimations that the failure may spread to other Euro Nations and perhaps imbalance the entire concept of 'Euro', in general.

I wonder have you any comment to offer?

Amicus

 

[Boxlicker101]

Anybody who says there is no such thing as "Death Taxes" is in disagreement with the online dictionary, which defines it here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/death+taxes

It might be a somewhat slangy term, but that makes it no less valid.

 

[statsultan]

Old Money pays no taxes; only New Money pays taxes.

If you inherit a trust from your bootlegger grandpa, there's no taxes on it. If you bust your ass for 40 years, building a business, the guvmint gets it when you die.

Good posting.

Estate taxation (aka "death taxes") is the fairest of all forms of taxation.

I'd rather have no income taxes, no sales taxes, no property taxes, and 100% estate taxation, than any other combination that had 0% estate taxation.

All taxation deters some kind of behavior. Sales taxes deter consumption, making people buy less than they want. Income taxes deters work, making the value of working one more hour less valuable. Death taxes deter ... death? Actually, they deter investing for your grown children. Of all the methods of taxation and their behavioral effects, I'm ok with that last one.

Some other tidbits:
* As part of the Bush tax cuts of 2001, the Estate Tax was slowly phased out until there was 0% estate taxes in 2010. The problem is that there's a law that states any permanent changes to taxation levels have to be passed with a supermajority vote of 60 in the Senate (this is before filibustering became ubiquitous). Otherwise, the tax bill can only be in effect for a maximum of 10 years. The Republicans knew they couldn't get the 60 votes, so they didn't even try. That's why the Bush tax cuts are expiring next year, as is the estate tax going back to its 2001 levels.

* The 2001 levels have a $1 million exemption for inheritance. As in, if you receive $5M from your Dad's will, you'll pay estate taxes on $4M of it.

* As part of Obama's campaign platform, he proposed amending the Estate Taxes to a lower percentage (45% as opposed to the 55% 2001 figure) and a $3.5 million exemption. Basically he said to freeze the 2009 rate. The Republicans blocked the move in the Senate, hoping the 1 year of no estate taxation would result in enough political pressure to get it removed entirely.

* Along with estate taxation, property that's inherited gets a basis adjustment when its owner dies. For example, say Grandpa owns $4M of Microsoft stock for which he paid $1M. If he were to sell it, he'd have to pay capital gains taxes on it, or 15% * the gain he made of $3M, or $450K, leaving him with $3.55M.
If Grandpa died in 2009 and left it to Grandchild, then Grandchild would have had to pay Estate Tax on the amount he inherited above $3.5M, i.e. 45% tax on $0.5M, or $225K. Grandchild has $3.775M left over. But then the basis in the remaining stock would be its value on the day he inherited it, i.e. no capital gains tax. He could sell that stock the next day for cash, no problem. The estate tax avoids the, in this case, higher capital gains tax. That transaction would be the same if it was the Family Farm, or Grandpa's mansion.
If Grandpa died in 2010, there's no estate tax applied at all, AND the step-up in basis still occurs. So no taxation, period. Imagine if this became permanent, the wealthiest families in this country could continue forever without paying taxes. Just live off the investments, cash in some of them when a relative dies, keep the rest for the next generation and watch those investments increase in value.

The promise of America is based on meritocracy. What I just described above is the legalization of a new aristocracy.

 

[amicus]

statsultan...I am not familiar with your screen name, but I am very familiar with your economic theory...you sound like an accountant...would that be your profession?

Estate taxation (aka "death taxes") is the fairest of all forms of taxation.

'Fair'; to whom?

All taxation deters some kind of behavior.

That is not the definition of taxation, although one might think so from the European experience. It was not part of the American scene until the Progressive era of T. Roosevelt and Wilson; exacerbated by John Maynard Keynes, may they all rot in hell.

Using tax policies to modify behavior is so unaccustomed in the science of economics as to have its' own moniker: 'Pigouvian', taxes.

There is a psychology and a philosophy inherent in Pigovian taxes that I describe as obscene, and I shall attempt to illustrate why I define it as such.

When a government has the unbridled audacity to use force to take a portion of the wealth of any citizen and then use that wealth against the citizen; that government is not long for this earth.

There are taxes on a man's income, his means to earn a living; there are taxes on a man's property; his shelter, home and castle, his possessions. The parasites of government know that a man must earn a living and have a place to live, thus they tax these necessities the most.

In the United States, our form of government is a 'limited' government; one given certain tasks to perform; protect the sovreignty of the nation and the lives and liberties of its' people. Since the inception of our form of government, there have been those who consistently attempt to expand the scope and power of government.

Only if you have the mind of an adolescent child still dependent upon its' parents, would you desire that dependence upon others to be a lasting element in your individual life.

The vast majority of free human beings seek and enjoy the benefits of independence and desire to retain and maintain that individual integrity to the principles of human individual freedom.

Only a corrupt juvenile conceptulization of the function of government would include the imperative to modify the behavior of the individual citizen by imposing taxes of those things the individual chooses to acquire and possess.

Only women and soft headed progressives can justify taxes on, for example, alcohol and tobacco products, to modify and control the behavior of an individual.

It is the unspoken...and obscene, concept that the 'group' has the right to control the liberty of the individual to suit the ends and goals of society at large.

One would have thought that the obscenity of Concentration Camps and Gulags, would have illuminated the inherent danger in permitting government the amount of power to accomplish such inhumane institutions.

The promise of America is based on meritocracy. What I just described above is the legalization of a new aristocracy.

You are a bit weak on definitions here. A 'meritocracy', a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement, also includes the right to enjoy the fruits of ones' labor and to expend those 'fruits' in any way the individual chooses, including passing them on to ones' progeny.

When you rob from the rich, as the Death Tax does, and expend that wealth on so called 'social benefits', you demean not only the achieved excellence and earned wealth, you destroy all incentive of the meritorious to continue to excel.

The unintended consequences and collateral damage done by such Pigouvian tactics have been clearly illustrated time and time again, as to act as destructive elements within the social order, leading, as in the case of Britain, Spain and Greece, to social upheaval and great suffering.

You might rethink your basic premises concerning human liberty and the function of government in society.

Amicus

 

[statsultan]

statsultan...I am not familiar with your screen name, but I am very familiar with your economic theory...you sound like an accountant...would that be your profession?

No. I used to be a journalist. Then I went back to school and earned degrees in economics and law. Thanks for insulting me as 'having the mind of an adolescent child,' though. I've always found that name-calling combined with arrogant condescension is the cornerstone of a persuasive argument - you delusional toad.

[The estate tax is most] 'Fair'; to whom?

Most of your post was a diatribe against all taxation. So I'm not going to repeat those parts that I could use to support my criticism of the forms of taxation other than the Estate tax. But suffice it to say that we agree that the taxation of an individual's income is the exercise of the government's sovereign power to forcibly remove that which a person has earned. To tax one's property or one's purchases is to do the same.

But to tax one's inheritance. An individual doesn't, in the same sense, earn his inheritance. His ancestor earned it. The income received is a gift, not earned. The individual has not been harmed, in the same manner, as the other forms of taxation available to the state.

That's why I deemed the estate tax the most fair.

You are a bit weak on definitions here. A 'meritocracy', a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement,

Yes exactly.

also includes the right to enjoy the fruits of ones' labor and to expend those 'fruits' in any way the individual chooses, including passing them on to ones' progeny.

No. A Meritocracy is a system of government - meaning a method in determining who has and will exercise the sovereign power. In a meritocracy, the leaders are determined through personal achievement, regardless of their position at birth. That's it. There's no 'right to spend your money however you please' section of the definition. That's superfluous language that you added to support your conclusion. But of course, the 'right to spend your money' includes buying the government's leaders. Thus my argument about an aristocracy.

With your attack on all American taxation since the era of Teddy Roosevelt, I can only presume that you wish to take America back to the 19th century where the only forms of taxation were on 1) property, and 2) imports. Additionally, government spending would be a tiny fraction of what it is now, most of the infrastructure necessary for a modern economy would be the responsibility of private actors, and our country would retreat from the rest of the world to become isolationist. Otherwise, we'd have to spend more money than you want taxation to support.

No thank you.

If any of that is incorrect, then please enlighten me on your vision of an America free from the misguided parentalism of economic theory and path-dependent reality.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Good posting.

Estate taxation (aka "death taxes") is the fairest of all forms of taxation.

I'd rather have no income taxes, no sales taxes, no property taxes, and 100% estate taxation, than any other combination that had 0% estate taxation.

All taxation deters some kind of behavior. Sales taxes deter consumption, making people buy less than they want. Income taxes deters work, making the value of working one more hour less valuable. Death taxes deter ... death? Actually, they deter investing for your grown children. Of all the methods of taxation and their behavioral effects, I'm ok with that last one.

Some other tidbits:
* As part of the Bush tax cuts of 2001, the Estate Tax was slowly phased out until there was 0% estate taxes in 2010. The problem is that there's a law that states any permanent changes to taxation levels have to be passed with a supermajority vote of 60 in the Senate (this is before filibustering became ubiquitous). Otherwise, the tax bill can only be in effect for a maximum of 10 years. The Republicans knew they couldn't get the 60 votes, so they didn't even try. That's why the Bush tax cuts are expiring next year, as is the estate tax going back to its 2001 levels.

* The 2001 levels have a $1 million exemption for inheritance. As in, if you receive $5M from your Dad's will, you'll pay estate taxes on $4M of it.

* As part of Obama's campaign platform, he proposed amending the Estate Taxes to a lower percentage (45% as opposed to the 55% 2001 figure) and a $3.5 million exemption. Basically he said to freeze the 2009 rate. The Republicans blocked the move in the Senate, hoping the 1 year of no estate taxation would result in enough political pressure to get it removed entirely.

* Along with estate taxation, property that's inherited gets a basis adjustment when its owner dies. For example, say Grandpa owns $4M of Microsoft stock for which he paid $1M. If he were to sell it, he'd have to pay capital gains taxes on it, or 15% * the gain he made of $3M, or $450K, leaving him with $3.55M.
If Grandpa died in 2009 and left it to Grandchild, then Grandchild would have had to pay Estate Tax on the amount he inherited above $3.5M, i.e. 45% tax on $0.5M, or $225K. Grandchild has $3.775M left over. But then the basis in the remaining stock would be its value on the day he inherited it, i.e. no capital gains tax. He could sell that stock the next day for cash, no problem. The estate tax avoids the, in this case, higher capital gains tax. That transaction would be the same if it was the Family Farm, or Grandpa's mansion.
If Grandpa died in 2010, there's no estate tax applied at all, AND the step-up in basis still occurs. So no taxation, period. Imagine if this became permanent, the wealthiest families in this country could continue forever without paying taxes. Just live off the investments, cash in some of them when a relative dies, keep the rest for the next generation and watch those investments increase in value.

The promise of America is based on meritocracy. What I just described above is the legalization of a new aristocracy.

Surely, you can't mean 100% estate or death taxes. What that would mean would be that, when mon and dad die, the gov. confiscates everything they own and boots their kids out into the street with nothing but the clothes on their backs. They would only get to keep the clothing if they could prove they had bought it themselves.

The gov. could sell everything, the house, cars, furniture, childrens' clothing, securities, etc. to the highest bidders, besides cleaning out the bank accounts of the deceased. Over a period of time, everything would belong to the gov. at one time or another, which is a Socialist idea.

Saying taxes are intended to monitor or control behavior is an exaggeration, but not an untruth. The taxes on tobacco and alcohol are intended to prevent people from using them, but they also produce revenue. Interest on credit cards used to be deductible, probably to encourage spending, but it is no longer. Maybe Uncle Sam, or Big Brother, wants to discourage easy credit and spending beyond one's means. Mortgage interest is deductible because the gov. wants to encourage people to buy their residences, for several reasons.

At the same time, they tax incomne, but they can't possibly want everybody to stop earning money. I know the gov. does like an underclass, dependent on them for a living, but they surely don't want everybody in that position. I say they want the underclass because Liberals do everything they can to keep it in place.

 

[amicus]

No. I used to be a journalist. Then I went back to school and earned degrees in economics and law. Thanks for insulting me as 'having the mind of an adolescent child,' though. I've always found that name-calling combined with arrogant condescension is the cornerstone of a persuasive argument - you delusional toad.

Persuasive arguments can be fun and I always scribble my thoughts on several levels of comprehension just as an exercise in futility for Lawyers and drydust Economists.

I thought my analogy of dependent children quite accurate in terms of comparison to dependent citizens of social democracies who perform in rote manner like non thinking bureaucrats.

But to tax one's inheritance. An individual doesn't, in the same sense, earn his inheritance. His ancestor earned it. The income received is a gift, not earned. The individual has not been harmed, in the same manner, as the other forms of taxation available to the state.

That's why I deemed the estate tax the most fair.

Ah, yes, like a nice little Marxist should and would. Here is a little logic, not your strong suit I would guess, but also unearned is the genetic intelligence quotient or body style of the inheriting individual. Should the mere potential of greatness be taxed from birth then? How about musical or artistic talent, taxed at birth?

No. A Meritocracy is a system of government - meaning a method in determining who has and will exercise the sovereign power. In a meritocracy, the leaders are determined through personal achievement, regardless of their position at birth. That's it. There's no 'right to spend your money however you please' section of the definition. That's superfluous language that you added to support your conclusion.

I left a little clue concerning the meritorious performance of an individual, to forestall just the kind of blindered refutation you attempted above; I would surmise that subtlety is also not a strong suit with you. Just as ‘free market’ can be described as an economy, it also holds moral implications as it applies to an individual, just as meritocracy can and does.

“There's no 'right to spend your money however you please' section of the definition.”

Sometimes you folks can be downright silly. You have a right to earn your money but no right to spend it as you please. What is wrong with that statement? If the producer has no right to his product, then, who does? Now tell me why and justify it.

“With your attack on all American taxation since the era of Teddy Roosevelt, I can only presume that you wish to take America back to the 19th century where the only forms of taxation were on 1) property, and 2) imports. Additionally, government spending would be a tiny fraction of what it is now, most of the infrastructure necessary for a modern economy would be the responsibility of private actors, and our country would retreat from the rest of the world to become isolationist. Otherwise, we'd have to spend more money than you want taxation to support. “

You seem to forget that the government has no money, save that it extorts from the citizenry; and that government has no expertise, it all exists in the individual and the corporation.

Infrastructure is a necessity of trade and the first roads, schools and hospitals were created by a free society to meet the demands of the citizens. Not by some omniscient benevolent band of bureaucrats functioning for the public good. Expanding lines of commerce within or without a given area is also a function of the market and would have equaled and surpassed that directed by a strong central government.

Isolationism is not inherent in the free market system; it is a function of government. (America just wanted out of European Royal Wars) A ‘free market’ is just that, encompassing the right and the ability to do business anywhere at any time. Government comes into play only as a protector of trade and treaty agreements between nations and to protect the lives and property of its’ citizens in foreign nations; that, in accordance with the spirit, letter and intent of the Constitution.

“If any of that is incorrect, then please enlighten me on your vision of an America free from the misguided parentalism of economic theory and path-dependent reality.”

I doubt I could enlighten you, personally, on any subject. But the possibility exists, slim though it may be, that other, more open minds, can make the connection between individual human liberty and the free market, ala laissez-faire, loosely, Let us alone!

I will stay with my ‘parentalism’ comparison to Statism, thank you; and whateverthehell, ‘path-dependent’ reality is, it should acknowledge the primacy of the individual human being in all matters and realize that the very concept of individual existence irrevocably implies individual rights.

Perhaps in your next defense of Marxism, you might clearly justify how you wish to dispose of my wealth, as an individual, to redistribute as you see fit. The moral justification that enables you to steal from me. Thank you.

I remain:

Amicus

 

[statsultan]

Ah, yes, like a nice little Marxist should and would. Here is a little logic, not your strong suit I would guess, but also unearned is the genetic intelligence quotient or body style of the inheriting individual. Should the mere potential of greatness be taxed from birth then? How about musical or artistic talent, taxed at birth?

None of those things can be qualified as 'income' and thus capable of being taxed. Duh. But once again you make arguments completely absent of reality.

I left a little clue concerning the meritorious performance of an individual, to forestall just the kind of blindered refutation you attempted above; I would surmise that subtlety is also not a strong suit with you. Just as ‘free market’ can be described as an economy, it also holds moral implications as it applies to an individual, just as meritocracy can and does.

Certainly. Meritocracy has moral implications. You were giving them economic ones. Now you've got implications through other implications. That's too many steps removed to hold as the primary consideration.

Sometimes you folks can be downright silly. You have a right to earn your money but no right to spend it as you please. What is wrong with that statement? If the producer has no right to his product, then, who does? Now tell me why and justify it.

No, I wasn't saying that. I was saying that it had nothing to do with the definition of meritocracy. But projecting arguments onto the other side that they are not making is a pretty easy way to 'win' an argument of your own fabrication.

You seem to forget that the government has no money, save that it extorts from the citizenry; and that government has no expertise, it all exists in the individual and the corporation. ...

No. I don't forget that at all. I do recognize that the government needs SOME money to exercise the very duties that you yourself touted a few posts back. I have repeatedly recognized the evil nature of taxes, and government. It shocks the hell out of me to be called a Marxist. All I've been arguing is that, if the government has to have SOME form of tax revenue, I'd prefer it come from Estate Taxes than any other.

But you seem to imply that defense of one type of tax is a defense of ALL taxes, combined with a defense of the current taxation scheme.

And again you do not dissuade from my statements about returning to the 19th century version of America. Instead you revel in it. So I can only assume, again since you didn't refute it in your last post, that you are ok with government taxation of property and imports. Even though in an earlier post you attacked taxation of property. Which is it sir? Or do you argue against any and all government revenue, meaning you are an anarchist?

Or perhaps my original point was correct, and in your attack of the estate tax you want a new aristocracy? Where government spending can only be provided by, and in support of, a ruling class measured by wealth and passed on from one generation to the next?

But please. Insult me some more. From you, it's a badge of honor.

 

[oggbashan]

~~~

...

There was a sense of impending doom in the BBC program, with intimations that the failure may spread to other Euro Nations and perhaps imbalance the entire concept of 'Euro', in general.

I wonder have you any comment to offer?

Amicus

No.

I saw the BBC programme too. It was rehashing things that have been said in the financial pages of the quality press for some time.

But it is behind the times. The Eurozone's actions have stabilised the situation and although there are still real problems, the growth in output is encouraging.

I can't comment because I am not as well informed about the Eurozone as I should be, but what I do know is that the dire predictions now look overstated.

Og

 

[ishtat]

No.


I can't comment because I am not as well informed about the Eurozone as I should be, but what I do know is that the dire predictions now look overstated.

Og

Og that statement looks to have some internal contradictions.

Personally I think the Eurozone still has very significant structural problems that the politicians are frightened to address. You will have noted the report yesterday that said 7 Eurozone banks were significantly undercapitalised.

The basic idea that one tax is in itself morally more reprehensible than another is dubious. The best thing about death duties is that they are extremely cheap to collect. The worst thing is that they are dead easy to avoid.

 

[Fag-Ash_Lil]

Og that statement looks to have some internal contradictions.

Personally I think the Eurozone still has very significant structural problems that the politicians are frightened to address. You will have noted the report yesterday that said 7 Eurozone banks were significantly undercapitalised.

The basic idea that one tax is in itself morally more reprehensible than another is dubious. The best thing about death duties is that they are extremely cheap to collect. The worst thing is that they are dead easy to avoid.

I know that Og noted that 7 very small Eurozone banks were significantly undercapitalised but he has doubts that the process was worthwhile because the "stress-tests" were so watered-down as to be almost useless. If those tests had been applied to the Icelandic banks before their failure, they might have passed.

Got any ciggies for me? Avoiding tax on ciggies is very easy. I get other people to buy them for me.

Fag-Ash Lil

 

[statsultan]

The best thing about death duties is that they are extremely cheap to collect. The worst thing is that they are dead easy to avoid.

You were saying something about an internal contradiction?

 

[amicus]

Originally Posted by amicus
You seem to forget that the government has no money, save that it extorts from the citizenry; and that government has no expertise, it all exists in the individual and the corporation. ...

No. I don't forget that at all. I do recognize that the government needs SOME money to exercise the very duties that you yourself touted a few posts back. I have repeatedly recognized the evil nature of taxes, and government. It shocks the hell out of me to be called a Marxist. All I've been arguing is that, if the government has to have SOME form of tax revenue, I'd prefer it come from Estate Taxes than any other.

~~~

On and on you go, complaining all the way how shocked and misunderstood you are; poor baby.

Perhaps if you clarified your position, others would find it possible to comrehend the nature of your argument; blaming your inability to communicate on the reader is a poor excuse.

The 'estate', as you prefer, 'death', as I prefer, Tax, is the most cruel and least effective of all taxes in that it inhibits saving, accumulating and investing in a growing enterprise with the well being of your children and grandchildren in mind.

Your specious speculation concerning anarchy or returning to the past are mere ploys to avoid you actually explaining what your basic economic premises might be.

Taxation has been a sore point with American's since the beginning as the primal impulse, by definition, of government, is to grow and expand. As it does so, more and more wealth need be extorted from the producers.

It appeared to me, and though I cannot speak for others, your passionate defense of the death tax seemed to be a scythe broadly sweeping through the stems of free market capitalism, destroying or harvesting all that is valuable.

A 'use' tax has always seemed reasonable to me; you pay for a service only if you utilize it. Most rational people will accept the amount of taxation necessary to fulfill the basic, authorized expenditures of government. Problems always arise when government goes into debt and raises taxes for programs outside the scope of our limited form of small government.

I would be interested in your overview of economics and the role government plays in society in an ideal scenario.

Amicus

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by amicus
You seem to forget that the government has no money, save that it extorts from the citizenry; and that government has no expertise, it all exists in the individual and the corporation. ...


~~~

On and on you go, complaining all the way how shocked and misunderstood you are; poor baby.

Perhaps if you clarified your position, others would find it possible to comrehend the nature of your argument; blaming your inability to communicate on the reader is a poor excuse.

The 'estate', as you prefer, 'death', as I prefer, Tax, is the most cruel and least effective of all taxes in that in inhibits saving, accumulating and investing in a growing enterprise with the well being of your children and grandchildren in mind.

Your specious speculation concerning anarchy or returning to the past are mere ploys to avoid you actually explaining what your basic economic premises might be.

Taxation has been a sore point with American's since the beginning as the primal impulse, by definition, of government, is to grow and expand. As it does so, more and more wealth need be extorted from the producers.

It appeared to me, and though I cannot speak for others, your passionate defense of the death tax seemed to be a scythe broadly sweeping through the stems of free market capitalism, destroying or harvesting all that is valuable.

A 'use' tax has always seemed reasonable to me; you pay for a service only if you utilize it. Most rational people will accept the amount of taxation necessary to fulfill the basic, authorized expenditures of government. Problems always arise when government goes into debt and raises taxes for programs outside the scope of our limited form of small government.

I would be interested in your overview of economics and the role government plays in society in an ideal scenario.

Amicus

You didn't say, but I presume you are referring to utility taxes and sales taxes on merchandise and on services, such as haircuts. Depending on what is exempt and what isn't, these can be the most regressive of taxes, falling hardest on those who have the lowest incomes. Additionally, I doubt that the gov. could raise enough to maintain a military force through such taxes only.

Nobody likes taxes, but I have to say that death taxes are more fair than most. However, they only belong on cash and securities, NOT on family farms and homes and privately owned businesses. The reason for that is that such assets would have to be sold to pay the death taxes on them. Securities might have to be sold too, to pay the taxes on them, but it would be less of a hardship, especially if there is a three or four million dollar exempt amount.

 

[amicus]

You didn't say, but I presume you are referring to utility taxes and sales taxes on merchandise and on services, such as haircuts. Depending on what is exempt and what isn't, these can be the most regressive of taxes, falling hardest on those who have the lowest incomes. Additionally, I doubt that the gov. could raise enough to maintain a military force through such taxes only.

Nobody likes taxes, but I have to say that death taxes are more fair than most. However, they only belong on cash and securities, NOT on family farms and homes and privately owned businesses. The reason for that is that such assets would have to be sold to pay the death taxes on them. Securities might have to be sold too, to pay the taxes on them, but it would be less of a hardship, especially if there is a three or four million dollar exempt amount.[/QUOTE]

~~~

The traditonal, classical approach to a 'use' tax, deals with roads and courts and such, those necessities involving interstate and intrastare commerce. I understand your position on regressive taxes but I disagree in that all American's should be taxed equally. This is in essence a 'sweat equity' in the Nation, in that everyone has skin in the game.

I think a well equipped standing military could be easily financed by such means and if there is an outbreak of war, War taxes could be imposed for a limited time.

My essential disagreement with the Keynesian crowd and those to the left of it, is that as the size and scope of government increases and consumes more and more of the wealth of a nation, that freedom and liberty and choice in the economic arena becomes limited.

For example the great 'Stimulus' plan by the current government to jump start the economy has failed miserably and only created more government jobs and higher wages for government union workers, which is, of course, an even greater drain on the private sector.

Amicus

 

[ishtat]

You were saying something about an internal contradiction?

See that 'lil ole' thing we call a full stop and you guys a period... makes all the difference.

 

[ishtat]

Originally Posted by amicus

~~~
A 'use' tax has always seemed reasonable to me; you pay for a service only if you utilize it. Most rational people will accept the amount of taxation necessary to fulfill the basic, authorized expenditures of government. Problems always arise when government goes into debt and raises taxes for programs outside the scope of our limited form of small government.

Amicus

Hmm' dangerous argument to my mind Ami. In the past 40 years the 'use argument' has been a driving force behind the introduction of value added tax (VAT). VAT has been so successful in expanding total revenues that the role of government has expanded to eat up the VAT collected. It is a far more productive (from the government point of view) than the sales taxes which currently preveil in the USA.

An American VAT would change American Society far more than any Estate duty/DeathTax.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You didn't say, but I presume you are referring to utility taxes and sales taxes on merchandise and on services, such as haircuts. Depending on what is exempt and what isn't, these can be the most regressive of taxes, falling hardest on those who have the lowest incomes. Additionally, I doubt that the gov. could raise enough to maintain a military force through such taxes only.

Nobody likes taxes, but I have to say that death taxes are more fair than most. However, they only belong on cash and securities, NOT on family farms and homes and privately owned businesses. The reason for that is that such assets would have to be sold to pay the death taxes on them. Securities might have to be sold too, to pay the taxes on them, but it would be less of a hardship, especially if there is a three or four million dollar exempt amount.[/QUOTE]

~~~

The traditonal, classical approach to a 'use' tax, deals with roads and courts and such, those necessities involving interstate and intrastare commerce. I understand your position on regressive taxes but I disagree in that all American's should be taxed equally. This is in essence a 'sweat equity' in the Nation, in that everyone has skin in the game.

I think a well equipped standing military could be easily financed by such means and if there is an outbreak of war, War taxes could be imposed for a limited time.

My essential disagreement with the Keynesian crowd and those to the left of it, is that as the size and scope of government increases and consumes more and more of the wealth of a nation, that freedom and liberty and choice in the economic arena becomes limited.

For example the great 'Stimulus' plan by the current government to jump start the economy has failed miserably and only created more government jobs and higher wages for government union workers, which is, of course, an even greater drain on the private sector.

Amicus

In CA and probably in the rest of the US, a use tax is a tax paid by the user of a product when no sales tax has been charged. If I buy something from out of this state and no tax is charged, I am obligated to report the use tax on my state income tax return. Of course, no individual in their right mind ever would, but that is the theory. Retailers do pay use tax on products they use, but that is because they can't get away with not doing it.

You are referring to things such as fees and tolls, which are paid by a person who uses a government service of some kind. I pay a toll when I drive across certain bridges or on certain highways.

VAT is inflation on steroids. Governments love it because they can sneak it in without the eventual consumer, the eventual payer of the VAT at every step of the manufacturing process, being aware of it. It would not work in the US because such a stink would be raised, but a sales tax might.

 

[amicus]

As many have previously noted, with an excess of glee, I might add, I am not a practical person in terms of my concepts concerning government and taxes. Nor do I pretend to have intimate knowledge of current or past tax codes in this country or any other.

I took a full two years of upper level economic courses, none of which mentioned a single classical, free market economist. I left the field after learning I did not wish to learn any more about manipulative economic systems and the punative function of taxes, rules and regulations on a market, any market place.

Were I to have been born in the 19th Century, I most likely would have owned a horse for transportation purposes. I would have known to feed and water the animal and give it shelter when required. Nowadays I own an automobile and I have learned the proper care and feeding of such a beast and it serves me well.

Regardless of the time or place in history, human needs have remained essentially the same; more sophisticated and isolated now, for sure, but still, the needs of food, shelter, clothing, et cetera, have not changed greatly with the passage of time.

One is encouraged to 'tithe' at Church, to support the clergy and the good deeds the Church may do; ten percent of a persons wealth devoted to peace on earth and the hereafter, I suppose that is a fair price/tax to pay for charity and a chance at life evermore.

Rulers in the past took the wealth of the people and built monuments to themselves or to Gods, Cathedrals and Pyramids, a hundred times over and took more wealth and sons to raise armies of conquest to expand their empires.

The sun never set on the British Empire, they used to say, as the English set forth, along with the Spanish and others, to tame the wild savages of foreign lands.

Then, 'along came Jones', ahm, America, and a startlingly new concept was added to the annals of human history.

That concept being, that a man was free to choose his own avocation and was entitled to the fruits of his labor. We even had a Revolution to emphasize our intense desire to be free of Kings and Popes and cruel and unusual taxation. We even had a Whiskey Rebellion when our own government decided to tax the nasty stuff that women hated.

Marx wasn't the first to discover and declare a cure for all of mankinds ills, indeed, Plato did so, way back when. Just turn your affairs, all of them, over to the ruling class and all your needs would be supplied.

Such a deal.

American educators have done a poor job of exposing young people to the concepts involved in a free society and a free market, and I might add, why would anyone expect European educators, or any other nations teachers to learn and expound upon free market economics?

Over the years, and there have been many of them, I have discovered that even well educated, professional people, are unable to comprehend the necessary relationship between human individual freedom and the free market place.

Death Tax, the title of this thread, is but another attempt to nudge an unusally well educated audience to begin to think about some quintessential aspects of a free society, a free market and why the Lady's torch is flickering and might need replenishment.

Those born with sufficient grey matter to consider such thoughts have an obligation to those who, by birth, are sentenced to toil for a living as best they can. We owe it to them to concern ourselves about their freedom and their aspirations as they greatly outnumber us and if angered, will burn the books and the Universities and all else we hold dear. They have done it many times before.

Our 'usual suspects' are well aware of this necessity and go about it by pretending to be concerned about the welfare of the masses and promise them the sky in return for their alliegiances and for a larger and larger portion of their working day in the form of taxes. All kinds of taxes, more than you can name and yes, the Value Added Tax, at every level of production from the source to the consumer is the most insideous; it penalizes everyone to support the elite bureaucracy.

That Bureaucracy, the government, the unions, is the only growth sector left in most economies. One need not be proficient in Linear Algebra to calculate that each government, union employee, supported by the tax paying public, takes wealth away from the common man and lowers his standard of living and worst of all, destroys his faith and belief in the 'system' that he is forced to support.

The above does not 'make' the case for a small government and low taxes, but it does provide the fundamental thinking underlying why a free market is essential to free and productive men everywhere.

I don't mind being a Pariah in this small but select gathering; one that takes the time and effort to warn and advise that the increased size of government will inevitably result in an upheaval at the grass root level of society. You are seeing the beginnings in the Tea Party movement that now has Representation in Congress and is growing in leaps and bounds from coast to coast.

Different things are happening in Europe, which Oggbashan continues to deny, and it is gloomily reminiscent of Germany arising from the ashes of WW1. What other Euro Nation might fill the role in a continent wide economic collapse?

Cheerful thought to leave you with.



Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

We need to move away from the mind-set that taxes are something the government needs to harvest and distribute to the starving children on Wall Street, Detroit, Martha's Vineyard, and the Hamptons.

Then we need to prioritize government spending, create a budget based on the priorities, and let all the other BS on the Christmas Wish List go. That is, destroy Congressional influence.

 

[xssve]

The promise of America is based on meritocracy. What I just described above is the legalization of a new aristocracy.

Exactly.

 

[xssve]

I would agree that non-monetary assets should not be taxable unless liquidated for capital gains.

But it's still a tax on the living, not the dead, the living inheritor is a completely different person, and it's not "double taxation".

By that logic, every dollar that has been taxed once, should never be taxed again, i.e. only previously uncirculated bills would be taxable, since any previously circulated bills have had a tax paid on them somewhere.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I would agree that non-monetary assets should not be taxable unless liquidated for capital gains.

But it's still a tax on the living, not the dead, the living inheritor is a completely different person, and it's not "double taxation".

By that logic, every dollar that has been taxed once, should never be taxed again, i.e. only previously uncirculated bills would be taxable, since any previously circulated bills have had a tax paid on them somewhere.

What about securities, which are not money but which are quite liquid?