Comments on: raise the estate tax to 100% http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/ thoughtful personal finance, career and health advice Sun, 05 Feb 2012 07:46:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: nick http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/comment-page-1/#comment-31099 nick Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:19:41 +0000 http://www.bripblap.com/?p=2048#comment-31099 The estate tax has always had a minimum cutoff. I believe it was $1million before it expired, so the first million that you passed on was tax free, and it was only for additional wealth that the tax applied. I would assume that the author would keep a minimum cutoff. If we said that one can pass on $1million but no more, would that resolve your worries about someone dying unexpectedly and leaving nothing for their children? In its usual form, the estate tax affects only a tiny, tiny percentage of the population, and I would be willing to bet that if we kept the $1million cutoff, the average 50 year old would not reach that level. My question is this, and I hope someone can enlighten me: Why do we assume that property rights should carry over from one generation to the next? I understand the importance of individual property rights, and I can see the argument that my children should benefit to some degree from my hard work, but should they be excused from working simply because I have been successful? This may be a generalization, but a number of people that I have talked to who oppose the estate tax also oppose welfare because they feel it creates dependency and destroys the initiative of those recipients. Rather than receiving transfer payments, they should "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" like countless Americans have done before them. But how different, really, is receiving welfare from receiving a massive inheritance? In America, we like to keep what we earn, but we also believe that people should earn what they get. A low or non-existant estate tax favors the former ideal, while a higher tax favors the latter. I think arguments can be made either way, but it seems that people tend to get outraged about the estate tax without really questioning the assumptions that underly those arguments. The estate tax has always had a minimum cutoff. I believe it was $1million before it expired, so the first million that you passed on was tax free, and it was only for additional wealth that the tax applied. I would assume that the author would keep a minimum cutoff. If we said that one can pass on $1million but no more, would that resolve your worries about someone dying unexpectedly and leaving nothing for their children? In its usual form, the estate tax affects only a tiny, tiny percentage of the population, and I would be willing to bet that if we kept the $1million cutoff, the average 50 year old would not reach that level.

My question is this, and I hope someone can enlighten me: Why do we assume that property rights should carry over from one generation to the next? I understand the importance of individual property rights, and I can see the argument that my children should benefit to some degree from my hard work, but should they be excused from working simply because I have been successful? This may be a generalization, but a number of people that I have talked to who oppose the estate tax also oppose welfare because they feel it creates dependency and destroys the initiative of those recipients. Rather than receiving transfer payments, they should “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” like countless Americans have done before them. But how different, really, is receiving welfare from receiving a massive inheritance?

In America, we like to keep what we earn, but we also believe that people should earn what they get. A low or non-existant estate tax favors the former ideal, while a higher tax favors the latter. I think arguments can be made either way, but it seems that people tend to get outraged about the estate tax without really questioning the assumptions that underly those arguments.

]]> By: J. McCollum http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/comment-page-1/#comment-30514 J. McCollum Fri, 28 May 2010 14:41:30 +0000 http://www.bripblap.com/?p=2048#comment-30514 I for one take these things seriously because nearly half of my grandfathers estate was taken by the government, as per estate tax laws. The taking of personal property from one person by the government and the encouragement of it to do so by another should be taken seriously. Essentially, we are debating whether or not Peter should have a say in what Paul does with his things when he dies. I take it seriously because I've seen it happen, and it is theft. The fact that it is facilitated by the government does not change the fact that it is, and we should be angry about it. Unfortunately, a government which robs from Paul to (presumably) feed Peter will always be able to count on the support of Peter. Can anyone really argue that? I for one take these things seriously because nearly half of my grandfathers estate was taken by the government, as per estate tax laws. The taking of personal property from one person by the government and the encouragement of it to do so by another should be taken seriously. Essentially, we are debating whether or not Peter should have a say in what Paul does with his things when he dies. I take it seriously because I've seen it happen, and it is theft. The fact that it is facilitated by the government does not change the fact that it is, and we should be angry about it. Unfortunately, a government which robs from Paul to (presumably) feed Peter will always be able to count on the support of Peter. Can anyone really argue that?

]]> By: J. McCollum http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/comment-page-1/#comment-30515 J. McCollum Fri, 28 May 2010 14:35:31 +0000 http://www.bripblap.com/?p=2048#comment-30515 The notion of limiting the amount we are allowed to leave to our children at the end of our working life is sickening. It's contrary to the ideas of individualism, individual rights and property rights, which sadly, so many people seem willing to go soft on when the "public good" is brought up. Get an ideological backbone, people. Really. The notion of limiting the amount we are allowed to leave to our children at the end of our working life is sickening. It's contrary to the ideas of individualism, individual rights and property rights, which sadly, so many people seem willing to go soft on when the “public good” is brought up. Get an ideological backbone, people. Really.

]]> By: J. McCollum http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/comment-page-1/#comment-30516 J. McCollum Fri, 28 May 2010 14:31:37 +0000 http://www.bripblap.com/?p=2048#comment-30516 "I do think the super rich should be super taxed or forced to stop their money sitting in accounts growing away.... "<br><br>So you propose that we should force them to spend it? At what level of earnings should your monetary and fiscal decisions become subject to the whims of the "people" I must ask?<br><br>Ever imagine that the doctors and lawyers and "super rich" of the Old Money America got there because they worked for it? My grandfather worked as a farm hand and soda hop to put himself through college. Now, he is considered a part of that "old money" America. God bless him for it. What a shame that we should be allowed to pursue our dreams to their fullest extent. “I do think the super rich should be super taxed or forced to stop their money sitting in accounts growing away…. “

So you propose that we should force them to spend it? At what level of earnings should your monetary and fiscal decisions become subject to the whims of the “people” I must ask?

Ever imagine that the doctors and lawyers and “super rich” of the Old Money America got there because they worked for it? My grandfather worked as a farm hand and soda hop to put himself through college. Now, he is considered a part of that “old money” America. God bless him for it. What a shame that we should be allowed to pursue our dreams to their fullest extent.

]]> By: J. McCollum http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/comment-page-1/#comment-30517 J. McCollum Fri, 28 May 2010 14:28:02 +0000 http://www.bripblap.com/?p=2048#comment-30517 God, you people are fools. The basis of taxation isn't to raise money for the sake of raising money - it's to pay for necessary services the government provides. Taxes based on "greed" (read: incentive) drive down competition and are, if you care at all about adhering to the original ideas which the country was based upon, abhorrent. If I want to be greedy and send my kids to the best ivy league schools that I can, and If I want to pass on a company, or God forbid a high standard of living (Isn't the notion just SO bourgeoisie? ) to my children, I am going to do it. <br><br>What you propose, and, what the misguided author of this post proposes, is the sort of thing the authors of the the second amendment envisioned needing protection from. Tyranny by the majority (in this case the usurpation of the individual by the government acting on behalf of a supposedly "egalitarian" ideal) is wrong, and the mechanism by which these taxes operate and the ideals proposed herein are prime examples. <br><br>A simple go-over of basic economics will help you to see why the estate tax is a dumb idea, unless you were never taught Hayek and the Market operations in college. God, you people are fools. The basis of taxation isn't to raise money for the sake of raising money – it's to pay for necessary services the government provides. Taxes based on “greed” (read: incentive) drive down competition and are, if you care at all about adhering to the original ideas which the country was based upon, abhorrent. If I want to be greedy and send my kids to the best ivy league schools that I can, and If I want to pass on a company, or God forbid a high standard of living (Isn't the notion just SO bourgeoisie? ) to my children, I am going to do it.

What you propose, and, what the misguided author of this post proposes, is the sort of thing the authors of the the second amendment envisioned needing protection from. Tyranny by the majority (in this case the usurpation of the individual by the government acting on behalf of a supposedly “egalitarian” ideal) is wrong, and the mechanism by which these taxes operate and the ideals proposed herein are prime examples.

A simple go-over of basic economics will help you to see why the estate tax is a dumb idea, unless you were never taught Hayek and the Market operations in college.

]]> By: J. McCollum http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/comment-page-1/#comment-30518 J. McCollum Fri, 28 May 2010 14:18:38 +0000 http://www.bripblap.com/?p=2048#comment-30518 Wrong. The death/inheritance tax wasn't designed to prevent the construction of aristocracies - It was enacted as a way to make money. Your argument is essentially that if a family earns more money than another, it should be the role of the government to take from that family the advantage they have gained, as it would move us to a more "democratic" playing field. There is nothing and never will be anything "American" about the idea of redistribution of wealth, or the control by a superior power of the personal, private property of individuals. You can believe in property rights, or you can believe in a death/estate tax. If you say you believe in both, you are wrong.<br><br>1) Do we have a right to personal, private property in the United States?<br>2) If I have one dollar to my name, do you also have a right to take/use that dollar as your own without my consent? (IE, theft?) If so, then you advocate a right to rob. If not, you advocate a right to property. Following that, <br>3) If I have one million dollars, why should my right to decide what is done with that money (personal property) be any less stringently respected?<br><br>Should we have a certain allowable quantity of any given item which we "own" and make any item above that quantity free to the public?<br><br>Silly questions, but they make liberals squirm. Wrong. The death/inheritance tax wasn't designed to prevent the construction of aristocracies – It was enacted as a way to make money. Your argument is essentially that if a family earns more money than another, it should be the role of the government to take from that family the advantage they have gained, as it would move us to a more “democratic” playing field. There is nothing and never will be anything “American” about the idea of redistribution of wealth, or the control by a superior power of the personal, private property of individuals. You can believe in property rights, or you can believe in a death/estate tax. If you say you believe in both, you are wrong.

1) Do we have a right to personal, private property in the United States?
2) If I have one dollar to my name, do you also have a right to take/use that dollar as your own without my consent? (IE, theft?) If so, then you advocate a right to rob. If not, you advocate a right to property. Following that,
3) If I have one million dollars, why should my right to decide what is done with that money (personal property) be any less stringently respected?

Should we have a certain allowable quantity of any given item which we “own” and make any item above that quantity free to the public?

Silly questions, but they make liberals squirm.

]]> By: J. McCollum http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/comment-page-1/#comment-30513 J. McCollum Fri, 28 May 2010 14:06:08 +0000 http://www.bripblap.com/?p=2048#comment-30513 You sir, are an idiot. We are not a democratic society, nor are we "egalitarian." Were we France, we would be. The United States was built upon personal property rights and to deny the right to transfer that wealth to someone who has worked to attain it is a violation thereof. Equality is not what America should seek - the protection of individual rights (that would be this silly notion of Liberty) is. Your argument is based upon faulty logic and an apparently poor understanding of the philosophical goals of the country. Read the constitution, read the federalist papers, and read the writings of those who feared the sort of policies you're proposing. Then try and read what you've written without blushing. You sir, are an idiot. We are not a democratic society, nor are we “egalitarian.” Were we France, we would be. The United States was built upon personal property rights and to deny the right to transfer that wealth to someone who has worked to attain it is a violation thereof. Equality is not what America should seek – the protection of individual rights (that would be this silly notion of Liberty) is. Your argument is based upon faulty logic and an apparently poor understanding of the philosophical goals of the country. Read the constitution, read the federalist papers, and read the writings of those who feared the sort of policies you're proposing. Then try and read what you've written without blushing.

]]> By: used and new car dealerships http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/comment-page-1/#comment-30266 used and new car dealerships Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:43:57 +0000 http://www.bripblap.com/?p=2048#comment-30266 No wonder I love this blog. Always surprise me every time I’m here. Always know what I want to read. really nice post. No wonder I love this blog. Always surprise me every time I’m here. Always know what I want to read. really nice post.

]]> By: My name http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/comment-page-1/#comment-30086 My name Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:10:42 +0000 http://www.bripblap.com/?p=2048#comment-30086 Is it absolutely necessary to start name-calling people? It's just a debate. Don't take everything so seriously. Is it absolutely necessary to start name-calling people? It's just a debate. Don't take everything so seriously.

]]> By: Reality http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/comment-page-1/#comment-30082 Reality Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:38:54 +0000 http://www.bripblap.com/?p=2048#comment-30082 How Stupid are you. Estate tax includes corporate worth. You talk like some guy won the lotto and has money sitting in a box. The majority of people that are affected by estate taxes are small business owners like the Dunkin Donuts, Bike shop (Motorcycle), Beauty shop, Contractor. For tax purposes everything is included. How many businesses do you want the government to run? What about those so called managers that you mentioned that lose their jobs to liquidate the business to cover the tax bill. Who gives them a new job? Are you going to support them? Why don't you move to China or get a real life and learn something looser. How Stupid are you. Estate tax includes corporate worth. You talk like some guy won the lotto and has money sitting in a box. The majority of people that are affected by estate taxes are small business owners like the Dunkin Donuts, Bike shop (Motorcycle), Beauty shop, Contractor. For tax purposes everything is included. How many businesses do you want the government to run? What about those so called managers that you mentioned that lose their jobs to liquidate the business to cover the tax bill. Who gives them a new job? Are you going to support them? Why don't you move to China or get a real life and learn something looser.

]]> By: Abigail http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/comment-page-1/#comment-30081 Abigail Sun, 14 Feb 2010 02:52:48 +0000 http://www.bripblap.com/?p=2048#comment-30081 So, Chris, since you hate socialism so much, I'm sure you won't go on Medicare or Social Security, right? <br><br>I'm sorry you're so terrified and I think Samuel has some points for your to consider. (Always good to hear some reasoned arguments, rather than what most of us do, which is knee-jerk repetition of whatever we heard on either Fox News or MSNBC.) <br><br>Overall, I hope you are able to go to the polls and register your disapproval there. Even if desperately hope your guys don't win. (Nothing personal.) So, Chris, since you hate socialism so much, I'm sure you won't go on Medicare or Social Security, right?

I'm sorry you're so terrified and I think Samuel has some points for your to consider. (Always good to hear some reasoned arguments, rather than what most of us do, which is knee-jerk repetition of whatever we heard on either Fox News or MSNBC.)

Overall, I hope you are able to go to the polls and register your disapproval there. Even if desperately hope your guys don't win. (Nothing personal.)

]]> By: Abigail http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/comment-page-1/#comment-30078 Abigail Sun, 14 Feb 2010 02:48:03 +0000 http://www.bripblap.com/?p=2048#comment-30078 How many people do you know with a net worth over $3.5 million, Ron? Because I think I've met one. The average (or even above average) 50 year old is not going to have that much in abeyance, even with retirement, house and life insurance. How many people do you know with a net worth over $3.5 million, Ron? Because I think I've met one. The average (or even above average) 50 year old is not going to have that much in abeyance, even with retirement, house and life insurance.

]]> By: Abigail http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/comment-page-1/#comment-30079 Abigail Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:52:48 +0000 http://www.bripblap.com/?p=2048#comment-30079 So, Chris, since you hate socialism so much, I'm sure you won't go on Medicare or Social Security, right? <br><br>I'm sorry you're so terrified and I think Samuel has some points for your to consider. (Always good to hear some reasoned arguments, rather than what most of us do, which is knee-jerk repetition of whatever we heard on either Fox News or MSNBC.) <br><br>Overall, I hope you are able to go to the polls and register your disapproval there. Even if desperately hope your guys don't win. (Nothing personal.) So, Chris, since you hate socialism so much, I'm sure you won't go on Medicare or Social Security, right?

I'm sorry you're so terrified and I think Samuel has some points for your to consider. (Always good to hear some reasoned arguments, rather than what most of us do, which is knee-jerk repetition of whatever we heard on either Fox News or MSNBC.)

Overall, I hope you are able to go to the polls and register your disapproval there. Even if desperately hope your guys don't win. (Nothing personal.)

]]> By: Abigail http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/comment-page-1/#comment-30080 Abigail Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:46:27 +0000 http://www.bripblap.com/?p=2048#comment-30080 Well, at $3.5 million it's unlikely that the average person would qualify, but don't forget that retirement accounts and houses do count toward the total. So if your loved ones live in a neighborhood that has vastly gentrified, depending on the area, you might edge in on it. <br><br>But that's probably unlikely. <br><br>I think you're using Swift-ian humor to illustrate your point. But you're right that it's pretty ridiculous to complain about the estate tax. Heck, Bill Gates Sr made a speech about why he's FOR the estate tax. He said anyone who can afford it should really just shut up about it. (I'm paraphrasing, obviously.)<br><br>The other thing you forgot to mention is that people can donate to their kids over the years. (A house would probably come with gift tax.) I have a friend whose father gives the exact limit every year to each of his kids. He makes a lot of money and doesn't want them to be taxed on his estate when he dies. He also didn't want to have them taxed if he gave them one lump sum. <br><br>That said, I have to disagree with your outlook on poor not paying taxes. I don't know how much you make a year (and it's not my business) but my guess is that you haven't tried to live on minimum wage recently. Until people can make a livable wage, it's not logical to ask them to go deeper into the hole. <br><br>I think the main reform that needs to go on, in relation to the working poor, is that the IRS should automatically change contribution levels for people who get full refunds. Then people wouldn't wait around until April for the rest of the money they worked so hard for. <br><br>It won't happen, of course. Too many "What if" scenarios. But it would make the most sense. Well, at $3.5 million it's unlikely that the average person would qualify, but don't forget that retirement accounts and houses do count toward the total. So if your loved ones live in a neighborhood that has vastly gentrified, depending on the area, you might edge in on it.

But that's probably unlikely.

I think you're using Swift-ian humor to illustrate your point. But you're right that it's pretty ridiculous to complain about the estate tax. Heck, Bill Gates Sr made a speech about why he's FOR the estate tax. He said anyone who can afford it should really just shut up about it. (I'm paraphrasing, obviously.)

The other thing you forgot to mention is that people can donate to their kids over the years. (A house would probably come with gift tax.) I have a friend whose father gives the exact limit every year to each of his kids. He makes a lot of money and doesn't want them to be taxed on his estate when he dies. He also didn't want to have them taxed if he gave them one lump sum.

That said, I have to disagree with your outlook on poor not paying taxes. I don't know how much you make a year (and it's not my business) but my guess is that you haven't tried to live on minimum wage recently. Until people can make a livable wage, it's not logical to ask them to go deeper into the hole.

I think the main reform that needs to go on, in relation to the working poor, is that the IRS should automatically change contribution levels for people who get full refunds. Then people wouldn't wait around until April for the rest of the money they worked so hard for.

It won't happen, of course. Too many “What if” scenarios. But it would make the most sense.

]]> By: Mike http://www.bripblap.com/raise-the-estate-tax-to-100/comment-page-1/#comment-30075 Mike Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:19:52 +0000 http://www.bripblap.com/?p=2048#comment-30075 Of that 99.7% - how many of those don't pay estate taxes because there is very little money left? Of that 99.7% – how many of those don't pay estate taxes because there is very little money left?

]]>