ell my why you think the federal government is owed money for investments and savings that have ALREADY BEEN TAXED AT LEAST ONCE?

In theory, it is not being taxed again.

The person receiving the inheritance is being taxed for the first time, as it is new income to them, even if they are a family member.

I don't necessarily love the tax and agree in principle that in spirit it is double taxation, but I also think dynastic wealth is not good for society over time so I kind of see the point to it.

Just like the tax cuts, if the estate tax reverts back to 2001 levels it is only because of an unwillingness by Congress to make a deal.

IggyPride00;469143 wrote:... but I also think dynastic wealth is not good for society over time......

Elaborate. Let's say I work my ass off to earn a nest egg that I am able to pass on to my children. In that process federal, state and local governments have taxed that income and I have - within the tax laws - paid 100% of my tax liability.

One of my intentions while earning that income (after I paid my taxes) was to insure that my savings and investments were passed on to my children. Now you are saying that in doing so my "dynastic wealth" is harming society? Why is it the government has a right to re-tax my income simply because I CHOOSE to pass it on?

In what possible way is MY choice to pass on MY wealth to MY kids harming society in any way shape or form?

If I pass my already-taxed wealth onto my son and he uses that to create NEW wealth, then by all means he should pay tax on that newly created wealth...but not the wealth that was already created. That's simply double taxation no matter how it's spinned.

Not dissing you personally...I just have a difficult time understanding the mindset that it's good for society for the long arm of Big Government to re-confiscate my wealth (after it's already been taxed) and redistribute my labor to whomever they please.

That's simply double taxation no matter how it's spinned.

Yes and no. The wealth isn't taxed again unless it is earned by someone else. In this case it would be your son/daughter.

They aren't taxing your wealth, they are taxing your kids income. Whether it comes from you, their employer, or the man on the moon, the government considers it income when you receive money as far the IRS is concerned. That is the taxable event, not the person dying.

The government will always tax transfers of wealth. It is what they do.

I am not necessarily advocating it as I said above. I am just trying to present the facts because the idea of the "death tax" has been misconstrued by many over the years. Money isn't taxed because you die, it is taxed as income by those who receive it as they have never paid taxes on it even though you might have. For all intents and purposes it is double taxation, but people should at least understand the rational behind it when discussing it because I don't think most do.

Footwedge;469123 wrote:So...you are in support of an aristocracy? Let's be honest here....are you gonna "take it with you"? Moreover, can't the kids get by with 3,5 million clear? Or in the case of Steinbrenner, "only" 550 million for the kids? Or aren't the kids supposed to work hard and cut out there own financial niche in life? I understand that leaving some financial security behind equates to a job well done. But to suggest that kids should be left with everything is ridiculous.

You know...there is a national debt thingy to consider.

And there it is. You finally got to it.

In the tax-and-spend mind, it is not the individual's money and wealth, it is the government's. Aristocracy? Huh? If you work your entire life to create a better life for your family, paid your taxes, donated to charity, lived your life to the fullest, and want to leave it all for your heirs and spouse so that they don't have to work as hard for it as you did, then how in the sam hell does anyone believe that wealth NOW belongs to Uncle Sam. Tragic. Just tragic. Like I wrote...this tax on Death really makes me irate.

Footwedge;469123 wrote:So...you are in support of an aristocracy? Let's be honest here....are you gonna "take it with you"? Moreover, can't the kids get by with 3,5 million clear? Or in the case of Steinbrenner, "only" 550 million for the kids? Or aren't the kids supposed to work hard and cut out there own financial niche in life? I understand that leaving some financial security behind equates to a job well done. But to suggest that kids should be left with everything is ridiculous.

You know...there is a national debt thingy to consider.

And why is there is a national debt? Because loser politicians can't manage the money they are entrusted with! So, why should these losers then be allowed to 'legally' confiscate the wealth of the responsible citizens in order to cover up their own ineptness and corruption?

There is no good answer to the question, so don't even try.

QuakerOats;469245 wrote:And why is there is a national debt? Because loser politicians can't manage the money they are entrusted with! So, why should these losers then be allowed to 'legally' confiscate the wealth of the responsible citizens in order to cover up their own ineptness and corruption?

I couldn't agree more. It's not a the citizens responsibility to find the money for the politicians to spend, it's the politicians job to manage the national debt.

And why is there is a national debt?

Because the electorate enables the behavior of the crooked politicians by putting them back in power continually even though we know they are robbing us blind.

For 30 years now as the trillions pile up the voters complain, but for the most part keep sending the bums back to Washington, as well as re-electing crooked Presidents who seem to think that doubling/tripling of the national debt is a perk of holding the office because they are too cowardly to make hard decisions.

I detest the politicians that run this country, but at the end of the day they are only there (and those before them for 30 years now) because we put them there. We could have put a stop to it at any point, and chose not to. For that we have no one but ourselves to blame.

Urgh. Over and over again I have to repeat myself. If you don't like the tax on wealth transfers resulting from the realization event of death and you want it to be lowered...fine, but stop calling it the "death tax." as if it were a tax on the person dying. The principle underlying the internal revenue code is that you cannot tax the same dollars, to the same person, twice. When a person dies, it's a realization event just like say, a sale of stock and consistent with the principles of income taxation, the tax is placed on the person receiving any realized and recognized gains......in this instance it just happens to be an heir rather than the same flesh and blood human being.

You conservative guys on here....if you want consumption taxation or the fair tax, or anything else....that's fine. I get it, it's the official conservative position now to oppose every tax it seems; but right now we have an income tax and the estate tax is consistent with that. Getting rid of it while retaining an income tax system arbitrarily allows certain accessions to wealth to go untaxed as they are earned when everyone else has to pay taxes on income as it is earned. I repeat, the consideration has NOT already been taxed to the recipient. If you do not accept this then there is no reasoning to you.

BoatShoes;469398 wrote:Urgh. Over and over again I have to repeat myself. If you don't like the tax on wealth transfers resulting from the realization event of death and you want it to be lowered...fine, but stop calling it the "death tax." as if it were a tax on the person dying. The principle underlying the internal revenue code is that you cannot tax the same dollars, to the same person, twice. When a person dies, it's a realization event just like say, a sale of stock and consistent with the principles of income taxation, the tax is placed on the person receiving any realized and recognized gains......in this instance it just happens to be an heir rather than the same flesh and blood human being.

You conservative guys on here....if you want consumption taxation or the fair tax, or anything else....that's fine. I get it, it's the official conservative position now to oppose every tax it seems; but right now we have an income tax and the estate tax is consistent with that. Getting rid of it while retaining an income tax system arbitrarily allows certain accessions to wealth to go untaxed as they are earned when everyone else has to pay taxes on income as it is earned. I repeat, the consideration has NOT already been taxed to the recipient. If you do not accept this then there is no reasoning to you.

Keep saying it, Boat....keep saying it. The ONLY WAY the government collects the tax dollars is when the person with the wealth....ummmm....how do I say this....let me see.....what do they have to do.....well....here....they have to DIE. Hence, here's the linkage....ready? Can you accept this? The tax is collected when the wealth earner DIES. Get it? Death = taxes? Death tax? Need a map? Need a graph? Sorry I'm so flippant, but this tax pisses me off to no end.

It used to be called an "Inheritance Tax", which sounds so rightful and social justicey. "That's right...inheriting money is akin to stealing money, so Uncle Sam should go get it before the loathesome spouses and heirs get it" Well....it's only collected upon the DEATH of the wealthy one. I'll say it again, since there is no reasoning with you either.....it is NOT the government's money anymore once it's been taxed. Double taxation is illegal and immoral.

BTW - in case anyone wants to get personal with me, I am going to collect nothing when my father dies as it will all go to his spouse, so it isn't a personal thing with me. It is a horrid thing, however.

BGFalcons82;469422 wrote:Keep saying it, Boat....keep saying it. The ONLY WAY the government collects the tax dollars is when the person with the wealth....ummmm....how do I say this....let me see.....what do they have to do.....well....here....they have to DIE. Hence, here's the linkage....ready? Can you accept this? The tax is collected when the wealth earner DIES. Get it? Death = taxes? Death tax? Need a map? Need a graph? Sorry I'm so flippant, but this tax pisses me off to no end.

It used to be called an "Inheritance Tax", which sounds so rightful and social justicey. "That's right...inheriting money is akin to stealing money, so Uncle Sam should go get it before the loathesome spouses and heirs get it" Well....it's only collected upon the DEATH of the wealthy one. I'll say it again, since there is no reasoning with you either.....it is NOT the government's money anymore once it's been taxed. Double taxation is illegal and immoral.

BTW - in case anyone wants to get personal with me, I am going to collect nothing when my father dies as it will all go to his spouse, so it isn't a personal thing with me. It is a horrid thing, however.

Death is just one kind of a realization event. If I purchase IBM stock at a FMV of $100 and it appreciates in value to $300 by the end of the calendar year...I do not have to report this accession to wealth until a realization event occurs...until I "fully realize" that wealth. If I sell the stock for $300...that's a realization event and I am taxed on the gain.

If I'm holding onto the stock and then I die...that is a realization event as the built-in gain transfers to my heirs and is clearly realized by them and must recognized.

It is not double taxation...it is not taxing the same dollars to the same person twice....it is taxing the accession of wealth to the heir. I purchased the stock with after-tax dollars (I paid the tax on my income)...the stock appreciates in value and goes to my heir at the realization event of death....a tax is levied on the estate for that gain....a tax paid by the heir clearly realizing that wealth.

Death is a realization event just like a sale of an investment.

Death = stock sale, eh? That's your gambit?

You...and all the socialists...agree on one thing: the wealth does not belong to the individual, it belongs to the state. They have somehow concocted divine authority to ownership of it and it will never end,just like every other entitlement voted into existence. For the colonists, it was the tax on tea that sent them overboard. For me...it's this one.

Next in line is the "Alternative Minimum Tax", that was set up to somehow snare evil rich people that weren't paying their "fair share" back in the 1970's. (BTW - who defines "fair share" and what makes them so damn smart? Is it an ahole like Geithner?) Dam those evil people escaping Uncle Sam's tax clutches. It was set up as anyone making over $100,000. Back 40 or so years ago, $100K was indeed a lot of money. Guess what...the bastards never indexed it for inflation, so it continues to be at $100K. How sick is that? Hell, the late 70's alone with inflation in double digits ruined this tax scheme. In the past 4 or 5 years, the populace has revolted enough each year so that the elitists pass a "temporary patch" that is designed to give the evil rich making $100K in the last 4 or 5 years a break. They always add the caveat..."we'll fix it later". Guess what...later is here and we don't hear a peep from the elitists about eliminating it for 2011. I read the other day where something like 28,000,000 Americans will fall into this trap that was originally designed to capture a few thousand satanic rich people.

Just another tax entitlement that will never go away. Just like the phone tax that was set up 60 or so years ago to help fund building American phone service from coast to coast. Why is that tax still alive when we have cell phones that can reach people in Moscow nowadays?

BGFalcons82;469191 wrote:And there it is. You finally got to it.

In the tax-and-spend mind, it is not the individual's money and wealth, it is the government's.

What exactly does "tax and spend" have to do with this debate? What about borrow and spend?

Aristocracy? Huh?

Well what exactly do you think an aristocracy is? An aristocracy is exactly what you are wishing for here.

If you work your entire life to create a better life for your family, paid your taxes, donated to charity, lived your life to the fullest, and want to leave it all for your heirs and spouse so that they don't have to work as hard for it as you did, then how in the sam hell does anyone believe that wealth NOW belongs to Uncle Sam. Tragic. Just tragic. Like I wrote...this tax on Death really makes me irate.

As a financial conservative, I would want my kids to succeed on their own. Work for your own damn money. Free lunches....are free lunches. Paris Hilton ring a bell?

Ummm...the 13 trillion dollar national debt thingy....again. You don't seem to care about that. More and more conservatives don't really.

BGFalcons82;469422 wrote: BTW - in case anyone wants to get personal with me, I am going to collect nothing when my father dies as it will all go to his spouse, so it isn't a personal thing with me. It is a horrid thing, however.

How do you know? Have you read your father's will? Maybe he'll leave his 50 million to you. One never knows. Then you can live your life as a lazy liberal.

As a conservative, the national debt is - to me - important to take care of.
At the same time, if the Paris Hilton's of the world or the Rockefellers want to keep passing down their money to future generations I don't give a damn. That's their business and their money... not mine.

It has nothing to do with me having to take one side on both issues, because I don't.

CenterBHSFan;469917 wrote:As a conservative, the national debt is - to me - important to take care of.
At the same time, if the Paris Hilton's of the world or the Rockefellers want to keep passing down their money to future generations I don't give a damn. That's their business and their money... not mine.

It has nothing to do with me having to take one side on both issues, because I don't.

OK. But who's business is the national debt? Is that not your business? Or my business? In my view, too many conservative pundits believe that the rising national debt is no big deal....as long as they don't have to pay much in the form of taxes.

Revenues from taxes are way down the past couple of years. This is one of the reasons why the debt has exploded. People think that Obama has spent twice as much as Bush did. But the actual numbers do not support that. Obama spent about 11% more than Bush did his last year.

I would see your point, Footie, if inheritances were the reason for the debt. Whatever Hilton inherits has nothing to do with government not being able to handle what it promises. Whatever Jay Rockefeller has inherited has nothing to do with the government writing bad checks. See what I'm saying?

Footwedge;469901 wrote:What exactly does "tax and spend" have to do with this debate? What about borrow and spend?

Ummm....let's see...the debate you are responding to is about....uh....ahem...well...it's about the Death TAX. Not the Death Borrow. Actually, by using the term "tax and spend", I was trying to capture the RINO's who are Democrat "Lite" elitists.


Well what exactly do you think an aristocracy is? An aristocracy is exactly what you are wishing for here.

I went to Google, the bastion of definitions to see what you're getting at. Aristocracy has to do with nobles and elitists that run a governmment. Here:
•Aristocracy is a form of government in which a few of the most prominent citizens rule. The term is derived from the Greek aristokratia, meaning "rule of the best". See Aristocracy for the historical roots of the term. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy

•The aristocracy are people considered to be in the highest social class in a society which once had a political system of Aristocracy. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy_(class)

•The nobility, or the hereditary ruling class; Government by such a class, or a state with such a government; A class of people considered (not normally universally) superior to others

In other words, your term has nothing to do with the people passing their wealth, be it a million bucks or a hundred million, to their spouse or heirs. I am not wishing for an autocratic ruler. We have one now.


As a financial conservative, I would want my kids to succeed on their own. Work for your own damn money. Free lunches....are free lunches. Paris Hilton ring a bell?

Ummm...the 13 trillion dollar national debt thingy....again. You don't seem to care about that. More and more conservatives don't really.

I care deeply about the debt. Why not come up with a system that deals with it as well? Maybe the "Fair Tax" or a "Flat Tax". Hell, I'd be OK with a VAT if all other taxes were eliminated. Not gonna happen, is it?

Footwedge;469949 wrote:Revenues from taxes are way down the past couple of years. This is one of the reasons why the debt has exploded. People think that Obama has spent twice as much as Bush did. But the actual numbers do not support that. Obama spent about 11% more than Bush did his last year.

11% eh? Why not 3 or 4%? Why so much? Is inflation running rampant? Is our society expanding at breakneck speed? Iraq was downsizing, so you can't blame that anymore.

Chris Christie is freezing budgets in NJ to balance their books. Wouldn't that be a novel idea by the federal government? Not gonna happen, is it?

CenterBHSFan;469966 wrote:I would see your point, Footie, if inheritances were the reason for the debt. Whatever Hilton inherits has nothing to do with government not being able to handle what it promises. Whatever Jay Rockefeller has inherited has nothing to do with the government writing bad checks. See what I'm saying?

Center...you see it's not the revenue that makes it impossible to get rid of. It's the mindset of the elitists that feel all wealth belongs to the state, not the individual. It's about contol, not about revenue.

Speaking of an inheritance....

I saw today where John Kerry was the richest politician in Congress. In fact, out of the top ten, 7 of them were democrats.
hmmmm....

Anyway, remember when somebody posted John Kerry's dismal charitable contributions?

It's okay for Democratic politicians to have money, just not anyone else. I believe the Democratic motto is "Do as I say, not as I do." Case in point the fat Al Gore.

BGFalcons82;469811 wrote:Death = stock sale, eh? That's your gambit?

You...and all the socialists...agree on one thing: the wealth does not belong to the individual, it belongs to the state. They have somehow concocted divine authority to ownership of it and it will never end,just like every other entitlement voted into existence. For the colonists, it was the tax on tea that sent them overboard. For me...it's this one.

Next in line is the "Alternative Minimum Tax", that was set up to somehow snare evil rich people that weren't paying their "fair share" back in the 1970's. (BTW - who defines "fair share" and what makes them so damn smart? Is it an ahole like Geithner?) Dam those evil people escaping Uncle Sam's tax clutches. It was set up as anyone making over $100,000. Back 40 or so years ago, $100K was indeed a lot of money. Guess what...the bastards never indexed it for inflation, so it continues to be at $100K. How sick is that? Hell, the late 70's alone with inflation in double digits ruined this tax scheme. In the past 4 or 5 years, the populace has revolted enough each year so that the elitists pass a "temporary patch" that is designed to give the evil rich making $100K in the last 4 or 5 years a break. They always add the caveat..."we'll fix it later". Guess what...later is here and we don't hear a peep from the elitists about eliminating it for 2011. I read the other day where something like 28,000,000 Americans will fall into this trap that was originally designed to capture a few thousand satanic rich people.

Just another tax entitlement that will never go away. Just like the phone tax that was set up 60 or so years ago to help fund building American phone service from coast to coast. Why is that tax still alive when we have cell phones that can reach people in Moscow nowadays?

It's not my gambit....don't shoot the messenger...I'm just repeating to you what any rational economist who understands the realization requirement embedded in our income tax will tell you. Funny, a lot of them would tell you that the AMT needs reformed as it is encapsulating persons it was never meant to encapsulate...but why should care? You will just ramble on about the AMT and assume someone who thinks a wealth transfer tax to the heir at death justified to think the AMT justified as well.

BGFalcons82;469811 wrote:You...and all the socialists...agree on one thing: the wealth does not belong to the individual, it belongs to the state. They have somehow concocted divine authority to ownership of it and it will never end,just like every other entitlement voted into existence. For the colonists, it was the tax on tea that sent them overboard. For me...it's this one.

Precisely and well stated, BG.

Like I said in an earlier post I cannot accept the idea that already-created and taxed wealth is somehow taxable again simply because it's passed on by free choice to a spouse or other family member after death of the wealth creator. I can, at least, see the logic in taxing any additional income (IE: profits, interest income, etc.) the family earns on that already-existing and taxed transferred wealth.

This business of "recognizing realization events" is epic bullshit created by statists who think government owns or at least should control all privately created wealth.

Interesting, but not likely. It is an inheritance tax. Period. Its based on a progressive system, just like the income tax system. Its possible to pass on a sizeable chunk of money and not be taxed at all. Its the greedy bastards that want to keep it all ( in the family) when larger amounts are involved. And as all know, a progressive system is fairer to those with far less while only taking more from those who can easily afford more. They also have been granted rights that make capital grow easier to achieve with tax write-offs & breaks and enjoy ther protection ( military) that govt affords them to grow their businesses, give them "special" consideration in legislation for benefit of their situation and even provide them govt money to assist with their business. But, the greedy bastards don't want share one dime........................................... unless its for their benefit. Thus , call it a death tax, raise hell that you can't give all $50 million to the kids and starve that damn govt who gave you all the special treatment & protection you got to make those millions .


Let them eat cake.

Paladin;470455 wrote:Interesting, but not likely. It is an inheritance tax. Period. Its based on a progressive system, just like the income tax system. Its possible to pass on a sizeable chunk of money and not be taxed at all. Its the greedy bastards that want to keep it all ( in the family) when larger amounts are involved. And as all know, a progressive system is fairer to those with far less while only taking more from those who can easily afford more. They also have been granted rights that make capital grow easier to achieve with tax write-offs & breaks and enjoy ther protection ( military) that govt affords them to grow their businesses, give them "special" consideration in legislation for benefit of their situation and even provide them govt money to assist with their business. But, the greedy bastards don't want share one dime........................................... unless its for their benefit. Thus , call it a death tax, raise hell that you can't give all $50 million to the kids and starve that damn govt who gave you all the special treatment & protection you got to make those millions .


Let them eat cake.

oh. my. God.