My family understands the socialist/communist ideology first hand that some in this thread are supporters of and from that experience I'm strongly against it.

12/4/2009 4:08:20 PM

Cool story, bra

12/4/2009 4:10:46 PM

thanks, bra!

12/4/2009 4:18:18 PM

Quote :

"This is why I'm glad my grandparents have been distributing their wealth amongst their childen and grandchildren incrementally every year for the last 15 + years."

We've been doing that too. Unfortunately most of the stock that was gifted was stock that dropped like a rock when the market crashed. My family has this weird obsession with GE, even though it hasn't performed for the past decade.

12/4/2009 4:21:34 PM

Quote :

""How is it moral for an heir to inherit 55 million for example they didn't even earn of money that could go to benefit the masses? " The masses didn't earn any of it, either, and have no right to it just because they're the masses and can exercise tyranny of the majority. Is the heir who did nothing to earn it a lucky bastard? Oh yes, but that's OK. We have no right to prohibit people from giving money/land to their children. "

Except that our gov. expends significant resources to make sure people can get and keep their millions of dollars. I'm not saying this means the gov. has earned it more than the kids, but this is one of the "justifications" for taxes. The gov. enables a lot of the prosperity we have, and you have to pay to play.

12/4/2009 4:25:23 PM

^income tax.

12/4/2009 4:27:03 PM

^^I think the point is they have already paid taxes on that estate, probably multiples of multiples of times. There's a point where it should stop. Just like you don't keep taxing a lot of things you buy used.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2009 4:28:21 PM

^^^^^^^You're right. The estate tax, which has been in place for years, has really set America back since it eliminated our incentive to work and innovate.

In fact, I think we can thank the estate tax for today's economy. Our current situation has nothing to do with the two things I expressed a distaste for: aggressive investing and real estate.

^^^^Again, lots of old people do that shit. They tend to stick with stuff (GE) that did them well in the past even if it's lame now.

Like you said, we're talking about Depression Era folks who've earned their nest eggs through loyalty, hard work, frugality, and luck...why would those people be sophisticated or savvy investors?

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 4:31 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2009 4:30:41 PM

^^thats what I've been saying.

it just seemed like moron was saying the government is entitled to your money after you die more so than your next of kin because "[it] expends significant resources to make sure you can get and keep their millions" when they already got their cut through income taxes, property taxes, and so on.

Quote :

"^^^^^^^You're right. The estate tax, which has been in place for years, has really set America back since it eliminated our incentive to work and innovate."

at this point I think quoting works better because i'm not sure if your ^ are directed at me or not...but either way I never said the estate tax set back America. My experience with the kind of thinking in this thread (which isn't the way things are atm) is from living under a socialist government (not the USA).

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2009 4:30:45 PM

Quote :

"^Wait. All sizes of estates would be eligible? My parents aren't collectors, their houses are falling apart, and they actively plan to die broke. So...what do you mean? Like the government would come in to appraise our family trinkets and force me to pay an estate tax on shit like the Christmas stockings that my mother sewed? Well, you're right, I'd have a serious problem with that since it would be a massive waste of everybody's time and money. [Edited on December 4, 2009 at 12:32 PM. Reason : Plus, I dare somebody to put a price on home-made Christmas stockings!]"

So it is alright to tax my family, but not yours?

Amazing how you are opposed to it, as soon as we mention you being affected. Social welfare and wealth redistribution are perfectly acceptable, as long as the money being taken away aren't yours...

12/4/2009 5:24:26 PM

Some liberals like Bridget can not be reasonsed with. No matter the logic, common sense, or math behind the argument they will counter with some abstract emotional vomit of a rebuttal to justify their claims.

12/4/2009 6:03:35 PM

^^ haha are you kidding? You are intentionally misrepresenting her position for the purpose of attacking it.

First, BSPK was merely talking about why it wouldn’t make sense to for “anything in an estate count” depending on what you meant there (because that’s a pretty bizarre concept to bring into this discussion).

And regarding the “no limit” thign, why do you think there is a threshold before the estate taxes kick in? It’s not about it being someone elses’ money, it’s about the wealthy having more to give. It’s the same logic behind progressive taxation, or a “prebate” in a Fair Tax, or an EITC. Are you against the concept of progressive taxes, the prebate, or earned income tax credit too?

12/4/2009 6:36:49 PM

Quote :

"I'm opting out. I'm not interested in money management. I mean, I'll keep a savings account, and I'll chuck what I can into my IRA or whatever it is I lost money in last year. But that's it. I'm not gonna spend my free time flipping houses or keeping one eye on the stock ticker. I don't care that much, and I don't think I should have to care that much in order to lead a long, healthy, happy life. "

That is totally your option, and I don't necessarily disagree (I take a different view, but I totally understand what you're saying).

Two things, though:

1. You don't rate anyone else's money who DID do what it took to accumulate significant wealth.

2. Flipping houses or daytrading is not necessarily at all in order to become a multi-millionaire on a middle class income. It's really much more of a matter of being disciplined to invest--you don't need to put your money into the sexy stuff--boring old index funds or an even more boring (and nearly idiot-proof) target retirement fund will do the trick just fine.

12/4/2009 6:38:36 PM

Quote :

"do you have any friends that are teachers??!!??!!?? I can guess the answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. "

umm...I AM a teacher

Quote :

" that at least within NC the system is actually rigged."

this is not about just nc this is about the whole us. I don't know about nc but in most of the nation teachers try to avoid inner city and poor areas at all costs. Those areas get stuck with new or bad teachers.

Quote :

"Most of the disparities in resources in schools has to do with the PTA (donations from the parents and local community) or from being awarded additional monies by the FEDERAL NCLB program since surprise surprise more affluent schools do better on standardized tests. ZOMG who would have thought! "

the schools should be mixed though is my point and any donations should go into a national pot so that everyone can get a good education. There shoulndt be such thing as "more affluent schools"

Quote :

" you really do not understand how much money is squandered at the national level do you?"

just because money is being wasted doesnt mean money is not needed. Thats a whole seperate story.

Quote :

"Consumption in the modern economy is fueled by credit availability, which is further fueled by savings, and investments. Yes, we can just print up more money, and loan out ever increasing amounts of imaginary money, but recent economic events suggest this may not be a good idea. "

Recent economic events have been caused exactly by the greed of wal street and consumption being fueled solely by credit.

Quote :

"even if it's 45% even 40% or whatever altogether, that's close enough to roughly call it "half""

No it doesnt even get to 40% until its high in th emillions.

Quote :

"The masses didn't earn any of it, either, and have no right to it just because they're the masses and can exercise tyranny of the majority. Is the heir who did nothing to earn it a lucky bastard? Oh yes, but that's OK. We have no right to prohibit people from giving money/land to their children."

Society-group of animals in a species that work closely together for the benefit of the group

not for thebenefit of self. Their children will be much better off having a functional society to live in in the future than having a second 20 foot yacht.

Quote :

"1. A million dollars ain't shit."

what are you trying to do? most people make a million in a LIFETIME. You're saying its not shit just to start out with?

12/6/2009 1:04:33 AM

Quote :

"umm...I AM a teacher"

Resign immediately.

Please... think of the children. They are our nation's future.


Unless of course you're just a preschool teacher. Even someone like you should be able to handle coloring books and safety scissors adequately.

[Edited on December 6, 2009 at 5:29 AM. Reason : .]

12/6/2009 5:28:31 AM

oh look a new idea

poor people that have never had money and likely won't ever arguing against people that either already have it or know they will at some point

12/6/2009 9:43:23 AM

oh look

someone who has no idea what they’re talking about

12/6/2009 11:05:46 AM

Quote :

"the schools should be mixed though is my point and any donations should go into a national pot so that everyone can get a good education. There shoulndt be such thing as "more affluent schools"

I went to a high school who's zone was gerrymandered in order to make it "mixed". I thought this bussing was complete bullshit.

Taking a quick left or quick right would have put me at a high school way closer to my home instead of trucking 5 miles into Charlotte.

By taking all PTA donations and putting them into a big pot to distribue evenly, all you will do is decrease the amount of donations.

I know i would not give money that was not being used at my school but instead given to all the schools.

This liberal rightous equal opportunity mindset is laughable imho. I suppose that the gov't should demand all parents for xmas
should give into the big santa clause pot that way the money for presents can be distributed evenly. After all it is not fair
that santa likes the rich kids better.

12/6/2009 1:35:01 PM

Quote :

"all you will do is decrease the amount of donations. "

thus the need for taxes. without them, people would continue to be selfish and society would fail.

12/6/2009 1:51:44 PM

That is the last thing we need is more taxes. If anything just relocation of funds that are currently being wasted elsewhere.

Giving money to your childs school is not being selfish.

12/6/2009 2:46:37 PM

Quote :

"This liberal rightous equal opportunity mindset is laughable imho. I suppose that the gov't should demand all parents for xmas should give into the big santa clause pot that way the money for presents can be distributed evenly. After all it is not fair that santa likes the rich kids better. "

haha are you kidding? This is the dumbest thing I think i’ve ever seen you post.

12/6/2009 2:53:21 PM

12/6/2009 3:26:08 PM

Quote :

"Giving money to your childs school is not being selfish."

Thats why we tax people who are bad at math to pay for schools here. Except we call that tax a lottery.

12/6/2009 5:32:41 PM

Quote :

"haha are you kidding? This is the dumbest thing I think i’ve ever seen you post."

My comment was sarcasm directed towards mambagrl comment that says its unfair that more affluent parents at better public schools give more donation money than poor neighborhoods.

^ this guy is correct it somewhat evens outs thanks to the lottery

12/6/2009 6:57:32 PM

I was talking to my best friend (he's a lawyer) about the Supreme Court a few weeks ago, and he mentioned a case that he believes was the biggest mistake the Court has made in the past hundred years. It was a case where the Supreme Court allowed counties to fund schools through property taxes, which in essence created a giant disparity in quality of education across county lines. I haven't studied enough to draw my own conclusion. It's San Antonio v. Rodriguez if you want to look at it. My friend's conclusion was that if we didn't allow this as the primary funding method for our schools, states would have a much more even system of funding and there wouldn't be disparity between school districts like there is now.

And for the record, PTA funding is really not a significant issue in comparison to other factors. It affects things somewhat in particularly affluent areas, but a larger factor in student success is the overall family attitude towards learning, and that just happens to correlate with PTA involvement and donations. Even without the money, those types of parents would still support their children in ways which would cause their schools to be more successful than those without a strong educational ethic.

Oh, yeah, one more thing, as a teacher who at one time was a product of the Wake County Schools, busing works, but only when it's done right. People complain constantly about the Wake County Schools, but they are consistently rated amongst the top in the country.

2/9/2010 7:10:50 PM

Quote :

" family attitude towards learning, and that just happens to correlate with PTA involvement and donations"

and family attitude towards learning corelates to quality of education. Its a downward spiral.

2/9/2010 7:35:39 PM

No, the quality of the education is not the problem. It is the quality of the students and their beliefs on the need for education.


Back to the OP without reading any of this:
Estate tax is crap. The money has already been taxed repeatedly. What is left was saved, and now instead of going to the person's children, half of it gets taxed again? How is that in any way 'fair'?

2/9/2010 7:49:22 PM

because it has a minimum limit at which point what the children will still get after taxes is much more than enough and the new tax revenue will go somewhere its actually needed. Everyone wins.

Quote :

"It is the quality of the students and their beliefs on the need for education. "

this comes from quality of parents education.

2/9/2010 8:14:04 PM

Why do the kids have be robbed of their money because their parents saved too much or invested wisely? Still doesn't change the fact that the .gov has already taken their share, repeatedly, and still wants more. No body wins when the 'rich' are paying for the poorer.


what I said still holds true.

2/9/2010 8:42:11 PM

Quote :

"Why do the kids have be robbed of their money because their parents saved too much or invested wisely?"

Its not robbed. The kids didn't earn it. The parents also obviously didn't hold a mutual relationship with the community that made them rich.

Quote :

"No body wins when the 'rich' are paying for the poorer."

How does anyone NOT win? The rich benefit from a more stable society with an able lower class. The poor benefit from a better quality of life with more guaranteed basic essentials. The entire nation benefits.

2/9/2010 8:54:04 PM

Quote :

"Estate tax is crap. The money has already been taxed repeatedly. What is left was saved, and now instead of going to the person's children, half of it gets taxed again? How is that in any way 'fair'?"

It’s 45% above $3.5 million. Everything below $3.5 million is UN-TAXED! Which means, for example, that if you left behind a $10 million dollar estate, your effective tax rate is 29%, which is more than likely lower than whatever you income tax rate was.

So of the $10 million that your children didn’t earn, they’re not going to get $2.9 million of that un-earned money. Of that $2.9 million that you’re being forced to give to the evil government, $700,000 is going to defend our great and proud land, $580,000 are going to help the parents and grandparents that raised us and helped make the country great get their basic necessities, $305,000 are going to help provide healthcare to those same parents and grand parents, $157,000 are going to help poor children get the healthcare their parents may not be able to afford for them so that one day they can hopefully contribute to society, and the bulk of the rest is spent on things we all use like the legal system, the road system, the education system, running day-to-day operations, NASA, scientific research, and keeping tabs on the environment. Around $100,000 is going to go towards bailing out the banks (but we’ll get that back actually to be used on something else). Somewhere between $50,000 and $75,000 are going towards those people who are on welfare, who are nothing but leeches on society anyway, amirite? Of course, if this really bothered you, you could use one of the many avenues of sheltering your estate from taxes to shelter that $75,000 so those welfare queens can’t get their grubby hands on your money.

It’s hilarious that the right have somehow convinced people that the estate tax is some big, bad, evil unconscionable tax, when most people don’t see to have a clue how it works or how it’s applied.

2/9/2010 9:08:20 PM

^why wasn't all that done with the taxes that were already taken?

Because of the inflated bureaucracy and .gov waste.

If 'I' have already paid taxes on all my income, and everything else that is taxed, why is 'my' money being taxed again because I still have it? That is what no one can clearly explain. To "benefit society" is not a sufficient answer.

2/9/2010 9:35:12 PM

Quote :

"That is what no one can clearly explain. To "benefit society" is not a sufficient answer."

Because you died and now there is your money left behind.

Why isn't to benefit society a good reason? o thats right, because you don't care about society. You only care about yourself and your family.

2/9/2010 9:39:39 PM

And the problem with that is? If we all worked to have better lives, then society would also benefit.
There is a point to tax, and I understand that, as does everyone else. I don't see why my family that is left behind can't get the full benefits from my hard work. Why should my money be taxed AGAIN?

A will does make my money turn into whoever's money when it is left to them.

[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 10:06 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2010 10:06:05 PM

^^^ why do you care so much?

of the ~2,420,000 people that die every year, ~5,500 of them have to pay estate tax. That is .23% of the population (the dies… not the entire population), a .23% of the population that are multi-millionaires. If your view is that a taxes are immoral, you have bigger fish to fry. If your view is that money shouldn’t be double-taxed (or more), you have bigger fish to fry. How is it the right has managed to get people so up in arms about a relatively unimportant issue?

If the government is going to repeal a tax, why not do so on the people in the population that make up the middle class or the lower class? Why spend your energy and time and anger on the estate tax, when more important issues need to be tackled?

I guess if it would shut up the people who have managed to trick Conservatives into whining about the estate tax, we could take the ~$30 billion loss repealing the estate tax would incur, and raise everyone’s taxes by about $300 to make up for it…?

[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 10:21 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 10:32 PM. Reason : ]

2/9/2010 10:20:54 PM

I remember this thread.

It's the one where CharlesHF is needlessly sly about money on the first page.

Then he spills the beans on the third page. And those long, boring beans include an amazing revelation: his grandparents might just maybe could have enough assets to get dinged by the estate tax.

JUICY!

[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 10:22 PM. Reason : JUICY!]

2/9/2010 10:22:36 PM

My grandma passed away 4 months ago. My parents saw the estate tax invoked.

Why should the top 1% of the population pay half of the taxes for the nation?

If you don't have a problem having your money double, triple, and quadruple taxed, then you have problems.

2/9/2010 10:41:39 PM

I wouldn't have a problem if I already had the maximum money needed and my children were already going to get well above the maximum amount of money needed AFTER estate taxes.

This is simply taxing loose change.

2/9/2010 11:00:42 PM

ohh, so you want free money. See, that is the problem.

2/9/2010 11:26:35 PM

no. its YOU wants free money and your inability to understand the fact that its you that wants free money is the problem.

2/9/2010 11:33:11 PM

Until recently, your belongings were passed down from generation to generation. I still think this is how the world should work.
Even if it was free money to me, it was never intended to be yours.

2/9/2010 11:51:10 PM

^^^Whoa. Once you definitely qualify as someone who might be affected by the estate tax, you're not supposed to talk about it. You're supposed to convince poor people that they might be rich someday and get them all outraged and talking and shit.

It's just unseemly if you do it yourself.

2/9/2010 11:52:51 PM

haha.
I'm no where near well off. I barely make ends meet.
My dad has been unemployed for 3 years, and my parents have been living off savings from good investments and saving for 20+ years when they had decent jobs.
My dad is still trying to find work, and trying to pay off my mom's medical bills.

If you split an estate between a bunch of children then take half away, it becomes a nice (and sad) surprise, not life changing.

This is what being a responsible adult is about, and not living beyond your means and expecting everyone else to bail you out.

2/9/2010 11:59:59 PM

Quote :

"Until recently, your belongings were passed down from generation to generation. I still think this is how the world should work. "

No thats one of the KEY flaws in capitalism that the estate law is helping to address. Sooner or later, everything would get sucked into a massive black hole. See, capitalism works just like gravity.

2/10/2010 12:11:15 AM

rich are already given many benefits from our government (see: bailouts, tax breaks for corps, influence in gov't, etc). there is also a wage gap between rich and poor as large as it has been in the 20s. why should the top 1% have to pay 50% of the taxes? because the top 1% makes 20% of the income in this country per year maybe? and that's just income. i'm guessing the actual wealth gap is larger. (top 10% holds 80% of the wealth in this country is one figure i could find).

2/10/2010 12:17:45 AM

if they make 20% of the income, shouldn't they pay 20% of the taxes?
ohh, and rich PEOPLE get bail outs? tax breaks?

[Edited on February 10, 2010 at 12:26 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2010 12:25:27 AM

is this another argument against progressive taxation? i'd really rather not go through this again.

^how do you think they get this money to begin with? they're typically not middle management.

and it's interesting how you pass over the bits about gov't influence and the fact that the rich hold onto far more than their share of wealth in this country.

[Edited on February 10, 2010 at 12:29 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2010 12:27:06 AM

The estate tax is bad, but it's a logical extension of the gift tax. With the gift tax, the government levies a huge fee on any gift you make to anyone. Unless, of course, it's to your wife (sorry domestic partners or same sex couples), charity, or it's a political contribution. It's all part of the same philosophy that says the government should get a cut out of any transaction large enough to matter. The estate tax is essentially just another gift tax that inevitably has to be imposed when the giver dies.

It would be one thing if the massive amount of tax money collected went towards something good. At least then you could make a case for these taxes. Unfortunately, most of the taxes collected, which don't come close to matching our spending, are not directly benefiting people, so it's hard to make the case that the tax is valid because it's a net benefit. That money is now being funneled to the richest (bankers), and Congress actively pursues policies that will destroy the economy.

2/10/2010 12:30:36 AM

Quote :

"Everything below $3.5 million is UN-TAXED! "

Oooh the gov't is letting us keep some of our own money...we are not worthy!

Quote :

"my children were already going to get well above the maximum amount of money needed..."

Who the hell are you to decide how much money someone "needs"?

2/10/2010 12:47:48 AM

Calculating cost of living is quite simple.

2/10/2010 12:48:49 AM