U.S. House passes estate tax repeal

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Sure. However you want to rationalize it. It's not like government spending will go down because of it.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Au contraire. I see the benefit, despite having no children and a net worth below a million dollars.

The benefit I see is a more just (or slightly less unjust) tax code.

It's a completely fair tax code. It targets the very highest in society, those families that can build up generational wealth/power, and helps to prevent them from doing so. Meaning each generation earns their wealth and power based on their own merits rather than the contributions of their parents.

a reply to: Aazadan

When I say 'fair' I mean equal. As in 20% always equals 20%. As in tax the poor and the rich equally and only once.

This thread is not about whether those who generate more should have to sacrifice more, so I'll just leave it at that.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Aazadan

When I say 'fair' I mean equal. As in 20% always equals 20%. As in tax the poor and the rich equally and only once.

This thread is not about whether those who generate more should have to sacrifice more, so I'll just leave it at that.

What do you consider fair though? Taxation as a percentage of income, or taxation as a percentage of disposable income? Disposable income rises disproportionally as your income increases for example rent and food for someone making 10,000/year can easily total 100% of their income but someone making 200,000/year need only spend say 50,000 on those things, meaning only 25% of their income is actually being utilized. That's the theory behind progressive taxation, as your disposable income rises so do your taxes.

In the case of this tax it hits only the very top of the income spectrum, one of the main reasons behind taxes besides funding the government is that they give everyone equal opportunity. In a world without taxes you have a situation where the wealth and power structures are established and newcomers can't break in. By taxing estates you prevent this generational power gain and (to an extent) make each person earn their wealth and power based on their own merits. Do you want your children to live in a world where they will never have any political say because they weren't born into the right family?

Also, this is only taxing once. The persons estate was taxed once while they were alive (though at that level of income you live mostly tax free). Once the person is dead it becomes the income of someone else, and thus subject to a tax again. When you earn money it is taxed, but when you spend that money in another business it becomes someone elses and is again taxed as their income. This is the same thing, to argue against estate taxes is to argue against all income tax.

a reply to: Aazadan

How about taxation based on 'usage of common reasources' and this would include both human and corporate individuals.

a reply to: FyreByrd

If I understand you correctly, what you would be referring to is a consumption tax. The more you consume the more you pay. These end up being as regressive as flat taxes because earning more money doesn't correlate to consuming more. The person who earns $4 million/year doesn't consume 100x the goods of someone who earns $40,000/year.

For an example, the 40k person might spend 6 months salary on a car. The 4 million person though is unlikely to drop 6 months salary on one or even multiple cars. They might own a nice luxury car that costs 100k, but again they are only paying on 25% of their income where the other guy is paying on 50%.

Since I'm just shooting down ideas, I should probably propose an alternative. How about this, we make tax brackets based on your percentile of income (so 100 brackets, or every few percentiles if you want more simplicity). Your tax rate is equal to the percentage of wealth in the country your percentile owns. It's a self correcting system. When the top few percent take too much of the wealth it gets taxed away to even things out, but when income inequality is getting too low and there is no gap between the rich and the poor the rates become optimal for some to break the mold and earn lots of money recreating a gap.

Here's a small example of what I mean if you were to break the concept into quintiles.
1 - 52% of wealth
2 - 30% of wealth
3 - 15% of wealth
4 - 10% of wealth
5 - 3% of wealth

Each person falls into one of these 5 points based on how much money they make. Lets say the population is 600 people so that's 120 per quintile. If you're in 1 you take percent of wealth owned (.52) / population in bracket (population/bracket size or 120) and you would arrive at a tax burden of 0.004333% for that person. If you take someone in the 5th quintile it would be 0.03 / 120 or 0.00025%.

From there you simply make a government budget. Say the government for these 600 people needs 1 million per year. Multiply that by the percentage for that quintile and you find someone in the 1st quintile paying 1,000,000*0.004333 = $4333 while someone in the 5th quintile pays $250 in this hypothetical 600 person government.

If you did this you wouldn't need estate taxes, it could all be consolidated into 1 tax without loopholes. It also fixes the issue of deficits/surpluses (unless the government intentionally collects less than it spends), it's fairly simple to publish percentages in a tax table (then simple multiplication or a calculator solves the rest), and most of all it gets away from the concept of marginal rates (since the minimum here is theoretically 0 and the max 100) which eliminates petty squabbles over percentages here and there.

a reply to: links234

I have never supported the idea that the wealthy should somehow be punished for success or inheritance. It seems the opposite of what America has always represented. I would like to see this law apply to everyone though. Not just for those that pertain to the $5 Million.

originally posted by: Flint2011
I would like to see this law apply to everyone though. Not just for those that pertain to the $5 Million.

How is it going to apply to everyone??? How many poor people have anything to give when they die???

Not many middle class people have anything left over to give either. In fact anyone without some sort of burial or life insurance policy might even put their own kids into debt trying to pay for their funeral.

That's why this is about the rich only. Because they are the only ones with the ability to pay it without it effecting them.

a reply to: mOjOm

No clue honestly but you can't tell me there is not a solution for everyone. If I die and all I own is a car then I leave it to next of kin, that person has to pay taxes on it. That's Bs. Same for a house that is less than middle class value. Yet my poverty level mother owns one and if she leaves it to me I get nailed with taxes I will never be able to pay and hence will lose the house inevitably. You get what I am saying? This happens where I live constantly and it's not anything new.

originally posted by: Flint2011
a reply to: mOjOm

No clue honestly but you can't tell me there is not a solution for everyone. If I die and all I own is a car then I leave it to next of kin, that person has to pay taxes on it. That's Bs. Same for a house that is less than middle class value. Yet my poverty level mother owns one and if she leaves it to me I get nailed with taxes I will never be able to pay and hence will lose the house inevitably. You get what I am saying? This happens where I live constantly and it's not anything new.

That's why the way it's set up now it only applies to .2% of the population who are passing down their estate worth at least 5.4 million. So anyone passing down a car or a house or whatever that has a total of less than 5.4 million doesn't have to worry about being taxed. It's only for the super wealthy.

a reply to: Aazadan

Aazadan,

I do like your idea better then an 'consumtion' or 'sales' tax as they are very regressive.

However my concept was based upon 'actual usage of public resources' not only by the individual person but by 'all usage of public resources' by that individuals assets. Meaning if the person owns stock that gets government subsidies, uses public roads and energy infrastructure, profits by public research, etc, he is taxes proportionately to his/her ownership.

This would hold true for Corporate People. The corporations externalized expenses (employees using government assistance to live, tax breaks, etc) would flow to the individual owners.

I'd like to see how much "WE THE PEOPLE" invest in these operations and people.

I've often felt that taxing individuals (human & corporate) upon net worth. It would discourage the acculation of capistal in few 'pools' and actually encourage investment and other forms of keeping the 'flow' of capital moving. I do hear the cry of double taxation but truly when we consider the damage to humanity of stagnate and hoarded wealth, it could correct a number of problems.

The other difficulties with such a system (conspecious consumption and the like, or political spending) would decline as people ajusted to a new system as people do.

In some American Indian tribes, the people who had accumulated the most wealth during a given year was required to give it all away and start anew each year. What a great motivator.

Those with great wealth (build on WE THE PEOPLE's resources and taxes) are traditionally obligated to give back to the community.

The idea of a self made man is a lie - all wealth is build on the backs of others - parents, neighbors, teachers, tax-payers.

I'd like to see a true cost accounting of what each individual, or each socio-economic class individual on average, costs WE THE PEOPLE in phsyical resources, capital (our combined taxes) and - get this - lost revenues.

What does it cost WE THE PEOPLE to raise one Billionaire from Birth.
What does it cost WE THE PEOPLE to raise up one Electrician from Birth.

ETC.

A system that acknowlegded this 'cost to humanity' would reflect true Personal Responsibility. These 'libertarians' and 'conservatives' and 'liberals' as well, who talk about personal responsibility only mean YOUR responsibility not MY responsibility. The banks never took responsibility for their actions (fraud and outright theft) and sifted the blame to those who they defrauded calling them irresponsible.

Arrrgh...

Here's another, simpler idea:

Corporations can deduct the 'cost of doing business' from their gross profit.

Individuals should be able to as well.

If corporations have all the rights of human individuals, then human individuals should have the same rights that corpoate people claim.

I can't work without a car, I should be able to write off that expense. I can't work without a place to sleep, wash and care for my assest (me), I can't get a job without schooling or training, ditto. I should be able to write all those things I have to have to be able to work off my Gross Profit.

But people will write of 'absurd' things, you holler; well, Corporations do it every day. Why can't I write off my gym membership (networking you know - cost of business - if I was incorporated I could).

a reply to: Willtell

No you statists don't get it.

Democrats and republicans are the problem in the US.

Stop supporting them. Stop giving them legitimacy.