I propose a REAL compromise on the estate tax

[Hippo_Tron]

If I am correct, estates under $1,000,000 are exempt from the estate tax. There is an argument that we should raise that number because $1,000,000 is not worth as much as it used to be due to inflation. This is a fair argument. Here is my proposal...

1) The maximum value for estates exempt from the estate tax shall be re-calculated for 2006 standards and re-adjusted anually to keep up with inflation.

2) The federal minimum wage will be re-calculated for 2006 standards and re-adjusted anually to keep up with inflation.

That oughta make some Republican heads start spinning.

[NNadir]

1. My opinion is that the estate tax should be 100%.

By what reason should someone be born with wealth.

It makes no more sense than having Czar Nicolas II, a congential idiot, born with absolute power in 19th century Russia.

It's crazy.

[pnwmom]

4. So you think that a spouse shouldn't be able to leave his/her half of

their property to the other spouse?

[NNadir]

7. A spouse is a different case than what I am thinking about.

I am referring to people being born with money.

My wife and I have worked on what we have together. She has earned my assets.

My children, however, should not be entitled to the fruit of my efforts. They are better served for the world as a whole and for themselves if they are required to produce themselves.

It is not true in every case, but in the vast majority of cases that I have known in 5 decades on the planet, the heir has been as much destroyed by what they inherited as they have benefited.

Sometimes they take innocent people down with them. That sucks.

[pnwmom]

10. We actually inherited some money that we're using to help pay for our

three kids' college. It hasn't stopped either my husband or myself from leading productive lives, but it has helped us provide our children with a college education.

Realistically, how many parents don't want at least some of the "fruit of their efforts" to help their own children?

[davepc]

12. You're free to not leave your children a penny

but what right does the goverment have to dictate that anyone can not leave their children an inheritance?

What kind of pro-choice society is that, when goverment removes all choice from the individual?

[NNadir]

15. Dead people are not individuals.

They're dead people. They are people who once existed but no longer do so.

I have been to many funerals and have yet to see one dead person who was being "dictated to." Neither have I seen a dead person do the dictating.

Dead people do not make choices. I have heard many people make statements, of course, about what dead people "would have wanted," but it is usually nonsense.

E. Howard Marshall and Anna Nicole Smith Marshall each express opinions about the wishes of J. Howard Marshall, but J. Howard Marshall seems not to give a rat's ass about the case. He can't give a rat's ass. He's dead.

[pnwmom]

23. Fine. Whatever. But a living person should be able to designate

where he or she would like his assets to go after he dies, within limitations. I don't think the estate tax should be repealed altogether, but I think saving for your children -- and their children -- is one reason a lot of people are willing to work hard.

[Selatius]

35. People work to put food on the table and to try to find meaning in life

The estate tax only applies after you're dead, and it was originally aimed at the very wealthy, not somebody who is just a family farmer or a small businessperson.

George W. Bush inherited quite a bit from his father. In a just society, he would stand on his two damn feet instead of using what was given to him from his fucking father, and if it turns out he can't stand much, then that's George's own problem. There are plenty of people infinitely more qualified to be president or CEO than GWB could ever hope to be, but that doesn't stop the idle rich from using their awesome buying power collected over several generations to bend and twist the laws to their favor and bend and twist the situation to their advantage against those who actually worked their entire lives.

How does one determine who is going to be the next GWB with inherited money or somebody who is going to be the exact opposite with inherited money? There is no accurate way to measure the outcome, so people have said one of three things: Only the rich should pay an inheritance tax; everybody pays an inheritance tax (usually with some level of progressivity like the progressive income tax); or nobody pays an inheritance tax.

Personally, when I die, I will have every last dollar of my assets liquidated and given away to charitable causes and causes I find worthy in the fight against corporate fascism and the fight for freedom. I will only leave behind so much that my children, if I have any, will be able to go to college with expenses paid but not one penny more.

If they want to make something of themselves, then they will work for that damn reputation, not ride on my reputation like GWB has with his damnable father.

[pnwmom]

43. IF you have any children, you may wake up someday and find out

-- to your complete and utter surprise --- that faced with the kind of love you've never felt before, that you never even imagined before, faced with the kind of love that would make you rather die than see harm come to your child -- some of your most cherished progressive principles may have to undergo reexamination.

Maybe this won't happen. But you sound kind of idealistic to me . . . so you when you fall for your first child -- I'm just predicting -- you might fall hard.

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. Don't Your Parents Have to Die Before You Can "Inherit" Their Money?

GW* hasn't inherited a single penny. Last I heard, GB the elder was still alive?

This whole argument blows me away. I'm not sure I'm reading the sentiments expressed on this thread correctly, so I'd respectfully ask these questions:

If my Dad and Mom bust their asses their whole working lives, and are lucky enough to buy say, 500 acres of land, and come to own it outright, they can't reasonably expect to bequeath it to me in advance of their death? And if they do, aren't I entitled to it?

I could ask the same question I guess about my Dad's 57 Chevy, of which he is the original and sole owner. Does the Govt. have a claim to it after he dies if it has accrued value above a certain point?

Are my Great-Grandmother's diamond earrings fair game? How about my Dad's wedding ring? Is everything of value that my ancestors have come to possess something that should be distributed to everyone but me upon their deaths?

Wow. Just Wow.

[Selatius]

56. If your 500 acres is over a million in worth, the feds will come for it

At least according to Hippo_Tron's first post. Add in the value of your dad's '57 Chevy, your great grandmother's diamond earings, your dad's wedding ring, and whatever was given to you by your ancestors.

If it's worth, say, 1.2 million, then there's gonna be a tax on the 200,000 but not the previous 1,000,000. Besides, I am not sure things your father didn't acquire through working for it (things from your ancestors from several generations back) is taxable, but I'm no legal expert in this field.

As far as GWB is concerned, I noted him for a reason. While it is true his father is still alive, GWB's life is the end product of several generations of Bush family members bequeathing their possessions to the next generation, and the new generation builds upon the wealth of the former, and the result is the BFEE. ("Bush family evil empire" as DUers have dubbed it)

Such activity, inevitably, results in inbalances of wealth over time. If your great grandchildren were less than what you'd expect of them, what of that 500 acres you gained from your parents? What if they turned it into a strip mall and used the profits to buy up neighborhoods nearby to have them bulldozed for more stripmalls and such using "eminent domain" becuase it benefits "the city" because it brings in more business regardless of the people it displaced?

As far as my position goes, I noted what I'd do. I never said that I believe everybody else should do as I do, and I never intended to state that I'd like to impose that viewpoint through law. The original OP was the one who wanted to tinker with the inheritance tax to begin with.

[Tactical Progressive]

57. Who busted their asses their whole working lives?

Wait a second, I've got to go back and check.

Oh yeah, here it is: NOT YOU.

And yet you here you are prancing around like you're entitled.

Wow. Just Wow.


Your dad CAN'T GIVE YOU his '57 Chevy or his 500 acres while he's alive. And yet somehow after he dies suddenly you're entitled to it?

Wow. Just because you are, I guess. That sounds like about the level of insight you have into all of this.


I have a question for you. What do you think of the ideas, in broad terms, of Social Security, nationalized healthcare, welfare and income redistribution? I'm wondering how ethically coherent your beliefs in inheritance taxation are.

[danalytical]

72. You are advocating seizing 100% of a family's assets

upon death? Is that correct? Because that's what we all seem to be arguing about. Not taxing the estate at 100% of it's worth "at a percentage".

This is unequivocally communist ideology. There is no doubt that forcibly taking 100% of a family's accumulated wealth upon death and putting in the national treasury is communist. Taxing an estate is one thing, but TAKING an estate and nationalizing it is something else.

I can understand being confused at what we are talking about, whether it's taxing at a percentage or taking 100%, but denying it's communist? It's textbook communist. Man creates wealth, government takes wealth man leaves to children and nationalizes it. Communism, redistributing wealth to the community. In small doses it's a great idea, but this idea is ridiculous..

Let's say I start a business with my wife. Then as my daughter gets older she works in the family business. We share everything, we have a good life. Then when both me and my wife die.... the government takes 100% of what we as a family own. How in the world is that a Democratic idea? I'll tell you right now, if the Democratic party endorsed this as part of their platform I would shed my party off like dead skin. Gone.

If you think telling America the Democratic party believes the government should seize all the assets of a dead man even if he wills it to his family, then the party is dead. Dead and gone. They would run from us like nothing we've ever seen.

[pnwmom]

75. He may believe that personally, but it's not the policy of the Dem Party

You're right -- that position would be the kiss of death, so to speak.

[ottomattic]

36. No longer exist?

Posted by NNadir
"Dead people do not make choices."


They do vote in amazingly large numbers in Cook County Illinois.

You say your children are not entitled to the fruits of your labor, Do you charge them for birthday presents? Christmas gifts? Thanksgiving dinner?

The estate tax is nothing but a scam. I have a family member, (cousin) who lost a small family run dairy farm because she had to sell to pay the estate tax when her husband was killed at age 42 in an auto accident. This woman and her 2 teenaged children were forced to sell their livelyhood. They were by no means wealthy, their best year they made a profit of a little over $40,000

[dysfunctional press]

37. you have proof of this?

"They do vote in amazingly large numbers in Cook County Illinois."

i happen to be an election judge in chicago, and i'd like to see the evidence for what you claim.

oh, and since the estate tax wouldn't apply to a spouse- your dairy farm story is OBVIOUSLY BULLSHIT.

[ottomattic]

39. you have proof of this?

Posted by QuestionAll
"oh, and since the estate tax wouldn't apply to a spouse- your dairy farm story is OBVIOUSLY BULLSHIT"

Estate taxes don't apply to the spouse? Who do they apply to? The neighbors? Put the bong down already!

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. Estates pass between spouses without estate taxes.

Also, you need to call the national farm bureau with your anecdote because they've been desparately seeking a case-study for a family farm that was lost due to estate taxes, and could find none.

Until now, of course that they've found your (I'm sure very real) cousin. Or aunt, or whatever.

[dysfunctional press]

61. estate taxes do not apply to spouses...

http://www.grandtimes.com/etax.html

All property left to a spouse is exempt from the tax...

dumbass.

[pnwmom]

70. I may be a dumbass, too, but what does this mean --

it's from the article you posted.

"Yes. Common ones include what's called a "QTIP" trust, which enables a surviving spouse to postpone estate taxes that would otherwise be due when the other spouse dies. And there are many different types of charitable trusts, which involve making a sizable gift to a tax-exempt charity. Some of them provide both income tax and estate tax advantages."

This seems to conflict with the earlier statement that a surviving spouse doesn't have to pany any estate taxes.

[dysfunctional press]

71. that has to do with trusts, and shielding money left to children from tax

estates pass between spouses without estate tax, but money left to children is generally taxable- trust funds are used to attempt to bypass those taxes.

[IdaBriggs]

73. Sounds like it wasn't (non-existent) ESTATE TAXES that caused the loss

of the family farm, but good old fashioned AMERICAN DEBT. Your cousin probably just lied to you to protect herself from the humiliation of having married a man who left his family in financial ruin. :(

[NNadir]

74. You are completely misinterpreting what I am saying.

I am saying that adult children do not have an intrinsic right to inherit wealth..

I have explicitly excluded spouses. I would also favor the creation of trusts to support minor children.

You are stating this like a Republican by creating a straw man.

If you must do straw men, let's try this one for size: Why do Bill Gate's kids have the right to own large stretches of Washington State, and other states, while children in the Congo have no right to food or education or clothing? Are the children in the Congo bad while Bill Gate's children are good?. Who decided the issue of who is good and who is bad? God? You? Congress?

Did Bill Gates children do something special to get this right? Is there some reason that they should inherit the right to decide the fates of millions of people who accepted employment offered by their father simply because their father ultimately kicks off?

Again, I look at the situation exactly as I look at the accession of the congential idiot Nicolas II to the position of unrestricted absolute ruler of the Russian Empire. That was a very, very, very, very, very, very dumb idea that had huge moral implications. Much of the tragedy of the twentieth century is directly attributable to this rote cultural decision, that Nicholas II had special rights because Alexander III was his father.

This is nonsense.

I feed my children. I educate them. I buy them presents. This is because they are minors. But I also teach them to function and produce, because they will live in a world with vast problems. This is an ethical charge. They will succeed the most as human beings if they expect as adults to carry their own weight and to function on their own accord.

By the way, my children are happy. I cannot even begin to think of the number of families that were destroyed over bickering about estates, brothers and sisters who disowned each other. I would rather have my children have each other than money. I'm sure they agree.

[danalytical]

5. Let me get this straight

If my father works his fingers to the bone on a family business. Then when he dies he leaves me his "estate" meaning business and assets. You think the United States government is entitled to 100% of my family business? If this is your position then I hope you never hold public office. Just because you have some idea of a fictional communist dream world society, that doesn't make it fair to steal the hard earned blood, sweat, and tears from some family business. That's sick if you ask me. I don't actually have anything to inherit, but I don't think it's right to forcibly take someone elses good fortune and hand it to the US Government. Look what they do with the money, Iraq, Big Oil subsidies, nuclear weapons, and on and on. I for one think a fair tax on any inherited wealth is a good solution. Make sure the numbers keep up with inflation, help the "people" retain their wealth if they have any at all, and do what is feasible to foster those without wealth to obtain it.

[NNadir]

8. Um, what have you theoretically done to deserve this inheritance?

In your hypothetical case, you have done nothing. Your father worked his fingers to the bone.

Thus I am stealing nothing; in the hypothetical case you are stealing. You are taking something you didn't earn. Now, if you work in the "family" business, that is another issue. Many people earn equity in companies for which they work. I have no problem with that, so long as it is not some under-the-table kind of deal.

For the record, your hypothetical father depends on our common infrastructure for his wealth. If he runs a refinery, I and my children, breathe his waste, he drives public roads and he depends upon the enforcement public laws to retain and acquire his wealth. In an anarchy, Bill Gates would have nothing since anyone could drag him out of his house, kill him, and steal all of his stuff. Thus his wealth depends on law.

I am not asking your father to give up anything at all. In my opinion he can get as wealthy as he wishes if he does so by honest means. I do not agree that your father is immortal however, and that you are him.

I have known many cases in which fathers were hard working individuals, creative, careful and just, while their children have been worthless pieces of shit. It happens all the time. (I have also known the inverse case.)

If you wish to be wealthy, and keep what you've earned I have no problem with that, so long as you pay your fair share of taxes for the infrastructure on which your wealth depends. But if you're looking me to endorse your right to have things you have not earned, I'm not going to do it.

I am not a communist at all, and your name calling is silly.

For the record, my father left me an ill fitting suit and an electric razor. This was too much. I donated the suit, but I will confess to having used the razor.

He was a very good man, and I specifically told him that I did not believe he should leave me any money. He gave me my life, and he taught me about the world. This was an excellent legacy.

[danalytical]

9. Your idea is communist

It's true that our collective society and environment is being used to create wealth, but that doesn't change the fact that someone created it with the tools at hand. It doesn't give you the right to deny a dead man his right to pass on a gift to his family. I think you may have genuine intentions, but the result is a completely communist practice and ideology. It's counter productive to capitalism. Why work for wealth if the government just takes it away when you die. I as a family man would like to give my children a better life and hopefully etch up a notch in this American society. I was born with nothing and I have not much at the age of 26, but I would like to leave something to help my family when I'm gone. I think you are mistaken, and if your ideas became law this country would turn to a poor shithouse.

[NNadir]

14. I'm going to take a guess and say you don't know what communism is.

Dead men (or women) have no rights. They're dead. This means that their brains are not functioning, they are not exchanging oxygen with the atmosphere and that they are producing nothing.

Are you very concerned about the rights of Beethoven? Of Charles I of England? Thomas Jefferson? Caligula? Benjamin Franklin?

When you're dead, you're dead. OK? Your opinions at that point about who should do what or who should own what are non-existent.

This by the way is not an element of Marxism or Capitalism for that matter. It's a matter of physics.

I note that your contention that the country would become poor because of the actions of the dead is ridiculous.

Many people have made "better lives" with no more than what they learned and produced. I note that Hewlett and Packard did not inherit their wealth. Neither did Thomas Edison. Or Benjamin Franklin. There is no evidence to suggest that they were poor as a result of inheriting nothing, and, in fact, the fact that they inherited nothing had no result in their country, our country, becoming as you say, a "poor shithouse."

In fact, the reason our country is becoming a "poor shithouse," has everything to do with a rich spoiled brat who was never required to produce a damn thing, but who was continuously bailed out crap by his freaky parents. I am referring to one George W. Bush, who regarded our nation's White House as a birth right.

[anewdeal]

60. If we are indeed a nation of producers

How many people are going to work hard at producing if they know the government will not let them pass anything down to their offspring.

You clearly are very knowledgable at physics, but do you know anything about the life sciences?

Have you noticed that most mammals feed their young? They make great sacrifices for their young?

Where is your common sense?

[adwon]

18. Actually it's not

1. You don't know what is and isn't communist.

2. The estate tax dates back to Adam Smith. If you seek to call him a communist, have at it.

3. Breaking up large accumulations of wealth is essential to capitalism. If you have large amounts of accumulated wealth, rest assured that it will be put to use in speculation in one form or another. It will be creating huge fees for a very small amount of people rather than creating jobs and livelihoods for many more.

[Bridget Burke]

63. Someone who wants their children to fluorish...

Should give them as good an education as possible. And possibly help them start their careers. Considerable gifts can be given during the parent's lifetime. But the kids should also learn about earning things for themselves.

I knew a girl who had a trust fund. But it would only begin when she turned 60. Quite a good way for her grandfather to ensure his grandkids would have money when they might most need it. But she was really pissed....

[mconvente]

11. Well, I'm glad you are happy that way, but...

I just don't agree. I will never spoil my children with the most fancy items (if I'm so fortunately after college and into my career), but not like I won't help them on their feet after they become adults and want to get married (if they do). I agree that a lot of rich parents just baby their children forever, but that's not the case for everyone. To be honest, if my child was having trouble financially because of being laid off or whatever, and he/she busted his/her ass to make it work but was having trouble, I'd definitely help my child out if I could - anything else, IMO, would be neglect. And why should the government take 100% of my hard earnings. If you don't want to let it go to your family, at least have it go to a public university to help fund college education for the less fortunate.

[NNadir]

13. Why do you insist that the "government is taking 100%?"

You are speaking about what will happen after you die.

Maybe you think you will have ownership of your assets when you're dead. I suspect that you will not have an opinion about anything when you're dead. My contention comes from the definition of death.

It seems to me that everyone is using this "taking away" meme because they think they live forever.

I am speaking of an inheritance tax, not an income or asset tax.

There is no legitimate reason why someone has an intrinsic right to their parents assets or material possessions.

[TheDonkey]

21. you are survived by your family

that's the point of inheritance. You'd crush any sort of competitive capitalism with no inheretance, or worse.... more loopholes are created a la' corporate law which allows the very wealthy to still dodge the tax while those who do not have the resource to exploit loopholes will get the stick.

[pnwmom]

24. You are right. No one has the intrinsic right to their parent's things.

But a living person should be able to designate ahead of time who inherits his or her belongings when s/he dies, and not have his or her whole estate subject to confiscation by the government.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. Yet a wage earner DOES have an intrinsic right to their wages...

... yet we seem to have no qualms about taxing them. :shrug:

[pnwmom]

46. I'm not objecting to estates being taxed.

I'm fine with estates being taxed at higher rates for the reasons you state. But not at 100%.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. Truth be told, I don't either, but I consider it a debatable point

Despite our national self image as the home of the Horatio Alger story, our class mobility is very limited. Republicans are working very hard to assure that those who have a rich ancestor get the benefit of our social infrastructure for free.

How much tax is appropriate on a $5 million estate? Zero? 20%? 50%? A 100% tax on estates over $4 million would yield a 20% effective tax for the estate in question. At this point it becomes a question of progressivity, because a 20% tax rate for all estates, including the guy who inherited "the ill-fitting suit and an electric razor" would also yield the 20% rate.

A 100% estate tax rate does not mean the government takes anyone's entire estate - it just limits the size of inherited wealth. Paris Hilton's inheritance would be $5 million, after having paid a 95% tax.

Although I don't *really* think that a 100% rate is appropriate, I think the current rate is a little too low. I would advocate a 50% tax on all estates over $1m, payable over a 10 year period. This should net enough revenue that the government will stop borrowing on my kids behalf. This is a better legacy to leave them.

Me? I inherited a $4000 funeral bill from my mom, and my stepmom (and her kids with high-net and low-moral worth) inherited dad's financial assets. I am extremely cynical about the intrinsic right of anyone to get anything on a work-free, tax-free basis.

[cherokeeprogressive]

54. Fuck It Then, I'll Just Go On The Dole... Why Work?

Work for what? If I can be reasonably assured that the Govt will take from the children of those who've earned a more-than-decent living so that I can get my daily sustenance, why work at all?

"There is no legitimate reason why someone has an intrinsic right to their parents assets or material possessions."

I have a car payment due next month... Whose inheritance shall I tap to make it?

Gimme a fuckin' break. I deserve it.

[Bridget Burke]

64. Work for yourself....

Ensure that you & your family have a good life. NOT by working 24/7, but by having sufficient funds & the time to enjoy them.

Don't absent yourself from your children's lives, labor at a job you hate & then die--knowing that THEY will never have to work. And that they won't really remember the parent who made them rich.

The suggestion of a 100% inheritance tax is a "modest proposal." But we still need one. However, most proposals mean that most of us will NEVER be "bothered" by the tax.

[cherokeeprogressive]

52. The Same Thing YOU Did to Deserve Your First Amendment Rights? n/t

[BigYawn]

49. The problem with him/her is that no sweat, blood and tears have been shed

in trying to build a successful enterprize. So he/she professes
the communist ideology of no one allowed to accumulate anything
material.

And guess what, even red China is full speed ahead on capitalistic
manufacturing infrastructure. They are tired of starving under communism
and have seen the light. But not the freeloaders in USA who continue to
advocate miserably failed systems.

[adwon]

19. It's hard to disagree

It's very hard to reconcile both inheritance and a meritocratic society.

[TheDonkey]

20. Um' America isn't a communist nation

Its ridiculous to think that people should work hard all their lives just to have the government, rather than their children, earn the benefit and pass that down to their kids.

THE AMERICAN DREAM!?

A 100% estate tax is full grade quackery.

[Tactical Progressive]

32. So it has to be a Nazi nation instead?

One extreme or the other, is that it?

I'm sorry but when people call socialism I call fascism. When people spew 'communism' I spew 'nazism'. Bet it's not as much fun for you that way.


"A 100% estate tax is full grade quackery."

No, you've got that 100% wrong. Anything BUT a 100% estate tax is full grade quackery in any society that pretends it's a meritocracy. Meritocracy and inheritocracy are mutually exclusive.

Here is the only intellectually honest position on this issue:

1) We're not a pure meritocracy, and any society that pretends that it is one or lies that it should be governed as one, should be made to repudiate that lie before estates are taxed at anything less than 100%.

2) In an honest society that recognizes and admits that it isn't a pure meritocracy, ie that millions of circumstances are always at play making the notion of a pure meritocracy a mockery (see 1) - in such an honest society inheritance shouldn't be taxed at 100% in recognition that even though it isn't meritocratically fair for people to inherit money that they didn't earn, it is part of human nature and personal ambition to work in part for not only yourself but for the future of your family.

The degree to which it is taxed is up for debate.


So you see, you're the quack if you think that a 100% estate tax is anything but appropriate in a society where the economics are determined by people who insist on conceiving 'fairness' in government as pure, and phony, 'meritocracy'.

[pnwmom]

33. I agree that it's incorrect to say that we are a meritocracy.

I also think a pure meritocracy would probably not be workable. But I don't want to live in an inheritocracy either.

I think what you said about human nature is probably true, at least among the people I know. It's the rare parent who would go through 18 years of devoting personal and financial resources to a child and then -- assuming some remaining assets -- say "I'm done! You're on your own!"

So I think there should be some estate tax, but I also think we should honor people's natural instinct to want to pass on something significant to their children after their death. And that "something significant" can include financial assets as well as memories and other priceless intangibles.

[Tactical Progressive]

45. Repubs want to live in an inheritocracy and call it a meritocracy

It's always the same people that want a country governed by strong-survive and devil-take-the-hindmost rules, hiding it behind the noble sound of the word 'meritocracy', while at the same time they demand that unearned inheritance is a natural right. The dissonance is mind-numbing.

Meritocracy and inheritocracy are mutually exclusive polar opposites.

The justaposition of those two unresolvable ideologies affords one of the best opportunities for progressive political epiphany - in realizing that you can never have an intellectually honest debate with a Republican on anything to do with economics or fairness. That's the only inherent value in their insistence that an inheritance tax is 'unfair' while sticking to the rest of their ugly, dog-eat-dog economic agenda - the realization that they are profoundly intellectually corrupt at the deepest levels.

We are not a meritocracy. No human society can be. We should strive to be meritocratic. Part of that requires inheritance be taxed progressively much like income. That's the very least you can do in an ostensibly meritocratic society to income that was never even earned given the taxes paid by people who do earn their income.

[pnwmom]

51. I agree with you about progressive taxes on estates.

For example, $5 million is a very large estate, no question about it. It's difficult to know how many estates reach this level -- the numbers I've seen never account for the vast majority of large estates that avoid estate taxes by giving to charities instead -- but it is a level that a very hard-working, and reasonably lucky, small business owner could aspire to.

On the other hand, there are estates at the $5 billion dollar level. Or $50 billion, like Bill Gates.

I think we need to build something into the system that recognizes that most parents DO want to pass on some of their financial bounty to their children. After that, I'm not sure where to draw the line. $5 million? Less? But I think few people would agree that the guy with a few million should be taxed at the same rate as the guy with a few billion.

[ottomattic]

38. It doesn't even rise to the level of quackery

Posted by TheDonkey
"A 100% estate tax is full grade quackery"

To call this Quackery sullys the good name of Quacks everywhere.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. You're right. We pretend it's a meritocracy. n/t

[midnight armadillo]

26. On one hand I agree

on the other I don't. I'd support a 100% tax above some inflation-adjusted limit, like $500,000 in inherited assets, excluding a home if it's kept in the family. By allowing for some inheritance most of the evils of it can be avoided.

By what reason should someone be born with wealth.

No reason at all, of course. John Rawls' veil of ignorance explains this far better than I can while typing one-handed while holding a sleeping infant... However, life isn't fair, and inheritance has been a human tradition for millenia. The main problem is that large inheritances distort social systems to allow for a leisure class, whose existence has never benefited anybody. Example: Paris Hilton.

[BigYawn]

47. Easy for you to say....you have nothing to leave behind anyway lol

[BigYawn]

48. If you really care for and love your kids, the best year to kill yourself

is 2010. The estate tax in 2010 is ZERO!!
In 2011 it reverts back to pre-Bush taxcut level of $600,000.

OTOH if you don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw out of,
by all means go on living.

[Warpy]

2. It went up to 2,000,000 this year

but the compromise might be 1,000,000 tax free per heir to a maximum of 10,000,000.

Also, I don't want the minimum wage or anything else calculated while the math dolts in the GOP are in charge. Either they can't add or subtract or they really are lying sacks of shit who despise everybody who works for a living.

[stepnw1f]

3. Aristocracy or Democracy

no negotiating. We have negotiated ENOUGH.

[Gothmog]

6. Currently, $2 million per individual or $4 million per couple exempted

The current system is wierd in that $2 million per inividual or $4 million per couple is exempted with that number increasing until 2010. There is no estate tax if you die in 2010 and then the tax goes bact to old levels.

[BaldEagleATV]

16. question for you NNADIR

My question to you NNadir is who should make the determination as to what an heir is "allowed to keep? You have this opinion that an heir is entitled only to what they earn if they were in a family business or entitled to nothing if they had no hand in earning it. What if I was disabled and my dad left me $982,479.62 that I didnt earn?
Could I keep it all?
Would you have the Govt. take 55%?

Why is the Govt entitled to it since they didnt earn it?
They already got their piece of it when it was earned originally.
Isnt that double taxation?
It is a tax isnt it?

Deciding who gets to keep what under what conditions is discrimination pure and simple.
I thought DU members were against discrimination.

Money earned by a man, woman, or combo of any, should be allowed to give their wealth to whomever they choose assuming they earned it and payed taxes on it.

Its theirs not anyone else's!!!!

Its private property right?

I respect your opinion but I vehemently disagree.

[pnwmom]

25. That's the bizarre part. After 2010 we're back to the $600K exemption

So if you've got an estate and you die in the wrong year your kids are screwed.

[BigYawn]

50. It is bizzare...govt is saying kill y'self in 2010 if you love your kids.

[davepc]

58. the roll back to 2001 levels was part of the 1st bush tax cut

either a compromise, or a poison pill. take your pick.

[Bridget Burke]

65. How many of the elderly wealthy.....

Will be "unplugged" in 2010? Or found at the foot of the staircase...

[pnwmom]

69. I know a wealthy woman in her 90's

and I think she's willing herself to stay alive until that year. She is well aware of the tax situation and hates the government. I wouldn't be surprised if she managed to die a natural death that year out of sheer orneriness.

[BigYawn]

77. If she kills herself, that would be a dirty, filthy shame on law makers.

[pnwmom]

78. I'm sure she wouldn't do that, but I think when you're that old

staying alive is partially the result of sheer determination.

[Tactical Progressive]

17. I love how it's suddenly all about 'fairness' when it comes to unearned

inheritance. Every other time conservatives sneer at 'fairness'. The very concept disgusts them. I got mine, fuck you is the full extent of fairness in their worldview. It's a 'meritocracy' doncha know, and that word sanctifies whatever disparities exist or why.

Course when it comes to them giving up money they never earned, as exemplified perfectly by inheritance, suddenly they are outraged about the 'unfairness' of it all. It's bad enough that their attention to fairness is so singularly focused on only what's fair to them, but then they pick something that isn't even unfair to them by their own rules - entitlement to money they never earned - and that's an outrage.

It's like hypocrisy squared. All the real, contrived, bought and paid-for unfairness in our economics means nothing, but the completely unfair notion of inheritance in the 'meritocracy' they use as a club is just the bellweather of unfairness to them.

These people understand ABSOLUTELY NOTHING beyond what they can get and keep for themselves. Their entire morality, ethics, values and character are built out of nothing more than that: what they can get and keep for themselves. That is all they are.

[BaldEagleATV]

22. So inheritance on applies to conservatives?

Thats a bunch of green with envy jibberish.

I have never inherited anything in my life and never will.
Perhaps a few fishing rods one day.

This isnt a conservative issue, its a moral issue.

You think only conservative kids inherit money?

The law applies to everyone.

So now NNADIR decides that it doesnt apply to spouses(discrimination against children)?
What have you theorectically done to deserve the pay for vaction days?
Perhaps you should payback all the money you have accepted over the years following your theory.
You didnt actually work on the clock to get it as you do your paycheck.
Since you have this opinion then you are against WIC, Food stamps, subsidized housing, grant money for college etc etc etc! The money to pay for this was taken from the people that earned it in the form of taxes. If the litmus test is "You must have earned it or been involved" then you must be totally against the welfare state in this country! How could a liberal be against "Social Justice"
Let me help you get back on track....of course you are for money to be taken from those evil rich bastards....of course you are for social justice......Now think of another way to support your opinion that estate wealth should be confiscated by the govt if the recipient didnt earn or have a part in earning the money...oh and it doesnt apply to spouses becasue they are adults and higher than kids becasue they'll turn out to be spoiled conservative kids that are worthless.

I certianly respect your opinion as to how to handle your own affairs with your children but your opinion isnt well suited for the lives of 99.9% of us.

Quote from tactical progressive
"These people understand ABSOLUTELY NOTHING beyond what they can get and keep for themselves. Their entire morality, ethics, values and character are built out of nothing more than that: what they can get and keep for themselves. That is all they are."


I married my wife 8 yrs ago this august and she had a 12 yr old son.
I convince her to take a chance on a worthless loser like me that didnt even have a job.
She did and after dating for 3 months (still no job) she married me.
I decided to make a good life for us.
I went to college at night, ran a paper route for the AJC 7 days a week, and worked a job during the day. I was up at 2 am and to bed by 11pm. It was gruleing but after about a year I bought a house for 63k. Kept working and finally in 2000was able to let go of my paper route as I had been on for some time. 40 hrs seemed easy to me by now. I studied day and night and advanced my careeer.
I lost my job twice in 6 mo due to the economy in late 2000 and with 140 buck in the bank...started my own business. Again, I was back to my business in the day and a paper route at night.
2002 I quit my route and dedicated my time to my business.
I coached my boys baseball team and was very involved in his life.
I was able to buy him a vehicle, and let him work with me to make his own dough.
I just wanted a better life for my wife that I so dearly love and our son.
Im 41 yrs old and have a nice house and my wife drives a late model Lexus.
Im a rather simple guy and have a late model Toyota tacoma xcab.
Yes I am conservative and thankful that I am an American where we still have the freedom to do what I did. No one did it for me. No rich uncles or relatives...I was the first to graduate high school in my entire family. I earned everything I got....I paid those that worked along side of me.
It was a hard road getting to where I am at now you talk to me about the selfisheness of people?
You think others are entitled to what I have?
How about the 32k I paid in fed taxes alone in 2002?
15% more in self employment tax?
It wasnt selfishness....It was a desire to make a good life for my new family.

It makes me sick to my stomach when people say I won life lottery or something like that.
Oh man you're lucky! Bullshit....I worked my effing ass off for years and sacrificed many things.
But to you Im just a stingy bastard that wants to keep all his inherited money.

Your analogy in the quotes above are like me saying.
ALL liberals are economically illiterate, they think socialism can still work and still wont consider the human factor. They only care about what makes them feel good about themselves regardless of the unforseen circumstances of their policy that were obvious to anyone with just a little clue about economics. They think they know it all especially the young ones...Why dont they run for office as soon as they are legal to do so so they can fix all the world ills before they grow up and realize they dont know dick.

[Tactical Progressive]

27. So you think economics is fair in the United States?

Either that or you simply have no conception of what the word hypocrisy means.

A meritocracy and an inheritocracy are mutually exclusive. That has nothing to do with your paper route.

But really you weren't reading, or listening, or thinking. You just needed to go on a whiny little rant about what a self-made Marlboro man you are. How pathetic. I'm not impressed. People have risen up out of far worse straits than you've ever dealt with, and they don't go around preening about how great they are. Wonder whether you'd have been able to afford that house if you or the ones you love had gotten seriously ill? Like so many people do - and lose everything including all hope of ever digging out. Bet not. But you don't really care about that either since you weren't debilitated. Your job didn't get outsourced to Malaysia, so that doesn't figure into anything. Some greedy prick didn't hire illegals to do your job, so that's not an issue to you. You've overcome your minor hurdles in life and so the rest of the country, the rest of the world probably, should just grin and be happy with whatever they face. How very self-centeredly pathetic you are.

Fortunately, each individual petty, greedy person isn't a country. And even if you don't understand what a country means, or what economics is, or what hypocrisy is, or how lucky you are, or the fact that an inheritance tax isn't even remotely aimed AT you but rather aimed at helping people LIKE you, or understand really anything but you, yourself and yours - fortunately other people are busy trying to understand what a country is and trying to make it one. You just live here.

Lucky indeed for the rest of us that most people don't base the integrity and honesty of our political and economic system on how great BaldEagleATV thinks he is. If they did, we'd be living in feudalism, with millions of mindless BaldEagleATVs looking for nothing more than for other people to leave their tiny garden patches alone.

You have little more understanding of this world that a squirrel guarding a nut. Nobody wants to take your money.

[pnwmom]

29. Excuse me but you have no idea what the circumstances of this

man's life have been. He called himself a pathetic loser and mentioned at least three times of being out of work, yet you can say "people have risen up out of far worse straits than you've ever dealt with." And then you call him a "clown."

You know nothing about him or his life circumstances. Why the need to get viscious?

[Tactical Progressive]

31. I know that there are always people in worse circumstances

than whoever you are.

I actually respect the guy for what he says he's done. What I don't respect is - and I've seen this far too much, so he ended up taking the brunt for all of it - his extrapolating his parochial success into everybody else should just buck up and deal with it like he has. When in fact he doesn't sound like he's had to deal with much more than most people I know. The shorthand is he's done a B+ job to get where he is while other people are in D- situations. And as if they don't have enough to deal with they've got people like him helping Repubs pile more weight onto their shoulders by pushing to exempt the well-to-do from the "unfair" burden of inheritance taxation. That's real-world vicious.

I took the "clown" line out after I submitted the post.

[pnwmom]

34. I'm willing to give newbies the benefit of the doubt, because

we need all the allies we can get. And I think the party can handle a range of opinions on the issues. It wasn't long ago that we had "Scoop Jackson Democrats" and "John Lindsay--" or "Rockefeller Republicans." Sometimes, in these vitriolic times, that era doesn't look so bad to me anymore.

Also, I didn't see anything about the poster's story that was particularly self-satisfied or smug. I hate self-satisfied and smug. My husband and I have been lucky for a number of reasons, and I know it. I also think that means we have an obligation to try to give back and also to help make a society that is better for everyone. It galls me when people who have had the same kind of luck that we have (parents who could give us an education, general good health, etc.) think they have succeeded because somehow they are intrinsically better than other people.

But I just didn't get that feeling about the guy. I think he probably has worked hard, loves his wife and son, and is feeling a bit threatened about the idea that if the Democrats had their way, all the fruits of his labor would be confiscated at his death. And why should we encourage him to feel threatened? The chance of a 100% estate tax being passed by a Democratic congress is zero.

[pnwmom]

28. Welcome to DU, BaldEagleATV,

I imagine that you'll have some interesting conversations around here. Given your conservative views, can you tell me what interests you about a Democratic website? Do you view yourself as a conservative Democrat?

I agree with you that loving parents work hard to benefit their children, now and in the future. And I think it's wonderful that you've been able to do so much for your family. Good for you!

[tkmorris]

30. There's so much wrong here it would take an hour......

to debunk it all. For starters, no one claimed that anyone should take what is yours. The argument was rather over what should happen to what USED to be yours once it isn't anymore, because you are dead.

Whether you want to see it or not, our society is loaded with people who contribute nothing, primarily because they don't have to. This was EXACTLY the argument made by conservatives for welfare reform back in the 90's. And so it was done. Now the same argument applies, except this time we are talking about people who have inherited fortunes they did nothing to earn. Do you really believe that Paris Hilton is "productive" in some way?

Oh and by the way. You say in 2002 you paid 32k plus 15% in federal taxes, but were working a paper route that same year. I don't know your exact financial situation but it is hard to see those numbers being accurate without a taxable income in the range of 150k or so, more most likely depending other factors. And yet you had a paper route? Gimme a break pal.

I could go on for a bit but I won't because: 1) Your mind is closed utterly and nothing I can say will change it, and 2) You said "Yes I am conservative and..." which means you won't be here long enough to make it worth the effort.

Have a smurfy day. :)

[BigYawn]

76. Meritocracy will beat Mediocrity EVERY TIME!!!

And ther is no such thing as "unearned" income.

When a person works and earns money, and he/she choses not to
blow it but rather save some of it and put it to work, what is
wrong with that? Without capital formation there will be no
businesses, no taxes, no government which depends on taxes from
productive businesses, and I will starve along with you. So, I
for one, am not jealous of people who have bothered to save and
invest and earning income from it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. This is a very good idea

Tying the maximum tax-free inheritance to the minimum value of work is appropriate.

The inheritance tax is important because:
1) society needs the revenue.
2) there's no overriding general benefit to tax free inheritances. There's no social reason to promote it.
3) a tax on wages prevents class mobility. lowering that tax enhances it.
4) if enforced, it slows the creation of an aristocracy
5) It is the primary reason that people leave estates to charitiable groups.

Kudos.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Here's how I look at it

I can respect the Republicans that actually present rational arguments about this tax and don't refer to it as the "death tax", which gets millions of middle class and lower class people scared about how they are going to be taxed when they die, many of whom don't even know what the estate tax is.

Here are some of their arguments and what I say to them.

1) The $1 million is worth a lot less than it used to be and doesn't keep up with inflation.

Fair enough, but as someone else pointed out they've already adjusted it to $2 million. Also, as I said in the OP the minimum wage also doesn't keep up with inflation and you tell me who needs the money more. The person who is inheriting a $1 million estate or the person who is making minimum wage.

2) We don't need to worry about the creation of an aristocracy anymore

I'd argue that considering the consistantly increasing wealth gap in this country

3) People have already paid taxes on this money and it's not fair to tax them twice

It depends on how you look at it. It's true that Paris Hilton's parents paid taxes on the money that they will leave to her. However, when Paris Hilton inherits it, she will never have to pay income taxes on it which a regular person who works for their money has to pay. Barring the estate tax, Paris Hilton will be one of the richest people in America and never have to pay a penny in taxes (with the exception of sales tax on things that she buys). Is that fair?

4) Just because it only taxes the rich, doesn't mean that it right

I don't know how you argue with someone about the morality of taxes, but here is what I do know. The national debt in this country is skyrocketing. A permanent repeal of the estate tax will cost us about $1 trillion (adjusted for inflation) from 2012 to 2021. It may not be "fair" that the rich have to pay taxes on their estates but I don't see Republicans offering us any viable alternatives.


Frankly I still think that estates over $1,000,000 should be taxed. Frankly I can't possibly see a circumstance where leaving my kids (if I ever have any) with $1,000,000 wouldn't be enough if they put it to good use. If they want to sit around and live off of my inheritence for the rest of the life, then yes $1,000,000 might not be enough, but just like the Republicans don't want to give out checks to "welfare queens", I'm not too inclined to give tax breaks to reward laziness. But I would be more than happy to concede adjusting that for inflation if the same was done for the minimum wage. Adjusting the minimum wage for inflation would be the greatest piece of legislation to help low-income families since Lyndon Johnson was President.

[anewdeal]

59. I know the government gets a lot of funds from the estate tax but

I just can't get over the moral problem of going against the wishes of what the individual wants. If someone wants to give their money to the government or a charity after they die, that is their choice. If they want to give it to their kids or make sure their cats live in luxury, that too is their choice.

I see individual rights superceding the governments need for money.

[sendero]

66. If individuals got what they "want".

... nobody would pay a dime in taxes.

Here's a simple way to look at it: the government has to come up with a certain amount of money to function. All we are arguing here is "who do they get it from"?

Frankly, I was always taught and would like for it to be true that America is a "meritocracy", where those who work the hardest and have the best ideas get the rewards.

How is being born into a rich family a "merit"? Such folks will already get every possible advantage, social status, education, etc - just how far should their luck go?

I'm not for a 100% estate tax, and frankly even if it were enacted the rich would simply set up bogus trusts and stuff to work around it. But the idea that the estate tax we have RIGHT NOW is some kind of anti-capitalist, unfair government windfall is pure right-wing addle-pated nonsense.

[anewdeal]

79. I see it differently

"the government has to come up with a certain amount of money to function."

the government can operate with whatever amount of money they are given. If they have an few million lying around I'm sure someone could create a Deptartment of Butterfly Mating Research (DBMR).

who should they get it from? Wherever they earned it from. YES, the government has to earn our money, they work for us, NOT the other way around. If the government wants to tax my gasoline then show me something for it like roads. What exactly did the goverment do to earn the life work of any one individual. Absolutely nothing. So why should they get their hands on it?

Yes, some babies are born rich and some are born poor. It is unfair. Some babies will become attractive and some babies will not. Should we equalize that too??

[Bridget Burke]

67. The government takes money from live people all the time....

They take it out of my paycheck before it's even deposited. Then I often pay sales tax when I buy something with that money. The money is being taxed TWICE! Oh, the horror. This individual does NOT agree with the way Bush spends my tax money--but he gets it, anyway.

An Estate is INCOME to those who receive it--earned by outliving a relative. Above a certain amount, I see no reason they should not pay taxes.

Those with fortunes should plan while they're still alive; estate planning can reduce the bite. Ensure that their favorite charities will get a share. Spend money on educating their children, setting them up with careers or homes. They should NOT sacrifice their own happiness only to ensure their kids will be rich. They should spend some of that extra money on themselves.

[slackmaster]

68. Your proposal directly addresses the ET's only major flaw

Right on!