So I was looking at some blog online and some obviously pro-gay people were talking about how evil the Mars company is. They cited the fact that they and 17 other billionaire families are fighting to get the estate tax repealed.

Can someone honestly tell me WHY we should have an estate tax in the first place? They already tax the shit out of us when we make the money in the first place, why tax it when you die and give it to someone else???

2/7/2007 12:59:35 AM

Diversification. Our government wants to afford about 45% of everything consumed every year, to do that they need a shit-ton of tax money. Well, you cannot lop everything into a single tax without dramatically destabilizing society as people flee the obscene tax. So, they spread the taxation around, therefore each individual tax can be reduced to "unjustly high" instead of "obscenely crushing".

2/7/2007 1:05:54 AM

Now I may think Social Security is a dumb tax, but that's another story... Seriously though, how can they justify taxing you on money when you make it, taxing you on it when you spend it, AND taxing you on it when you die and leave it to someone else???

2/7/2007 1:16:23 AM

^^^translation, i was reading Dailykos, and they brought up something i disagreed with. here is a leading question surrounding the issue.


to answer said question, what need have you of your money when you are dead? after (presumably) giving the best health care, education, etc that you could afford to your children, why shouldnt it go to help society? i would love to see a system where you were allowed to pass on a certain, reasonable amount to your children, and then either all the rest goes to government or you could give it to charity and avoid the tax. ((commence head spinning))


^^might as well just post the laughter curve

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 1:17 AM. Reason : up]

2/7/2007 1:17:31 AM

Quote :

"why shouldnt it go to help society?"

I think the money should go to help society, something that is very unlikely to occur once the money lands in the laps of Congressmen. Or is it really in society's best interest to build more tea-cup museums and bridges to no-where?

If you give the money to the descendants then we would expect to see them feed themselves, maybe a few friends, buy a house, Learjet, a yacht; all of which society will at least derive some enjoyment from, even if it is after these items arrive on the used market.

This is even ignoring the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the inheritors could take over the business and keep it running instead of liquidating fire-sale style to pay taxes, with the traditional job losses and economic dislocation that entails.

This is also ignoring the very real possibility that even if the inheritors liquidate the business they could invest it wisely, creating jobs and fulfilling market demand.

The only way the inheritors could use the inheritance to the detriment of society is if they decided to use it as Congress does: building giant monuments to waste. This is a possibility, but quite rare and unlikely, especially compared to the 75% certainty that Congress will waste it and get not even manage to win votes with it.

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 1:32 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/7/2007 1:31:54 AM

im curious where you got that they were pro-gay in something about estate tax? and also what pro-gay means

2/7/2007 1:53:54 AM

Quote :

"to answer said question, what need have you of your money when you are dead? "

Many liberals feel you don't really need your money while you're alive either..thus high taxes.

2/7/2007 10:34:23 AM

From Hillary Clinton

Quote :

"The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy; alternatives and technology that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence."

The government knows how to spend your money better than you do.

2/7/2007 10:39:42 AM

what does an estate tax have to do with a business? people are not corporations.

2/7/2007 10:57:51 AM

Well, actually, quite a few corporations are filling as individuals now adays.

2/7/2007 11:33:29 AM

Think of it as an aristocracy tax. I'd much rather they tax old money than new money.

2/7/2007 11:56:31 AM

Well, if all you want to do is tax old money then a consumption tax, either VAT or sales tax, would do that much better than an estate tax, which historically only taxes the stupid or the surprised.

The old crotchety man that lives to be 100 with billions of dollars tends to somehow manage to have his estate valued exactly at the maximum, thanks to nearly all of it being squirrelled away outside the country by clever tax attorneys.

2/7/2007 12:14:59 PM

or you could close loopholes.

2/7/2007 12:34:47 PM

obviously pro-gay

2/7/2007 4:25:11 PM

GO GAYS!

2/7/2007 4:32:22 PM

Patman, brilliant. We'll just turn the U.S. into a police state, make it illegal to transfer money or property overseas, and strip search everyone at the airport to make sure they don't have any cash on them.

2/7/2007 5:02:15 PM

Quote :

" Can someone honestly tell me WHY we should have an estate tax in the first place? They already tax the shit out of us when we make the money in the first place, why tax it when you die and give it to someone else???"

for starters, the dead person isn't being taxed. the person who receives the money is being taxed, because this money is income. don't listen to the bullshit coming from the libertarians.

also, how can a corporation file taxes as an individual?

^how does closing loopholes make it illegal to transfer money overseas? You are playing the slippery slope argument which we all know is a strawman.

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 5:15 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 5:14:58 PM

Quote :

"for starters, the dead person isn't being taxed. the person who receives the money is being taxed, because this money is income. don't listen to the bullshit coming from the libertarians. "

[/thread]

2/7/2007 5:39:04 PM

^^ Actually, no, it is double taxation. The receivers of any gift must declare it as income on their income taxes. So, taxing an estate separately is double taxation, once as an estate and then again as income.

I don't see how this thread matters, BTW, since the estate tax has already largely been neutered; it only applies above $4 million, which is in excess of most small businesses.

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 5:48 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/7/2007 5:47:55 PM

does it matter since the person is dead? I swear, libertarians bitch about the stupidest shit.

2/7/2007 5:50:46 PM

Does it matter since the taxes have been eliminated?

2/8/2007 12:29:16 AM

it should be restored.

2/8/2007 12:42:56 AM

What do you care? The person is dead.

2/8/2007 7:58:37 AM

you people never cease to amaze me

2/8/2007 9:41:01 AM

Pardon me if I don't have much sympathy for dead people who left behind >$4M. There's too many important problems for our legislators to waste time on than this crap.

2/8/2007 10:21:24 AM

Exactly, so they should give up trying to re-instate the taxes and get to work solving the nations problems, specifically Government waste and mismanagement.

2/8/2007 11:05:40 PM

i say we call it what it is, an income tax

2/8/2007 11:10:42 PM

It always seems that people who love taxes are the ones who don't have the requisite work ethic to attain any wealth.

2/8/2007 11:25:35 PM

yeah. that bill gates guy is so lazy

2/8/2007 11:36:19 PM

Quote :

"Can someone honestly tell me WHY we should have an estate tax in the first place?"

Actually, I think it's the most legitimate tax we have. When the government charges income tax, it takes away from what I deserve. When it charges sales tax, it increases the cost of goods and services I need and want. But estate taxes only take money when the individuals that earned it cease to exist. I'd love the first two to be lowered at the expense of the third.

Quote :

"If you give the money to the descendants then we would expect to see them feed themselves, maybe a few friends, buy a house, Learjet, a yacht; all of which society will at least derive some enjoyment from, even if it is after these items arrive on the used market."

Yeah, I'm really glad the Walton family has $15 billion each. They really worked hard for it. I hope they have fun on their yachts while children are sick, hungry, and illiterate.

Quote :

"the 75% certainty that Congress will waste it"

We're discussing the legitimacy of estates being taxed. Government efficiency is an important but seperate topic.

2/9/2007 12:29:35 AM

Quote :

"I hope they have fun on their yachts while children are sick, hungry, and illiterate."

And using that money to build a tea-cup museum is going to cure these sick, hungry, and illiterate children?

If you have a program that will cure these ills then getting the money is not an issue, just borrow it. But when it comes to taxation, is it too much to realize that this money is not going to be used to pay for such expenditures?

[Edited on February 9, 2007 at 12:46 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/9/2007 12:44:31 AM

LoneSnark, I agree with much of what you've said in the SB.

But right here, you need to shut the fuck up.

You know you're being dishonest when you describe tax revenue solely in terms of its less admirable applications. You also know that private entitites have a capacity to wrongly allocate funds, just like the government does. Just because there is a market for Malaysian ladyboys doesn't mean that using them is right.

Yes, government expenditure needs tweaking and, in some cases, straight up fixing. But the fact that the government fucks up fiscally doesn't mean that rich kids with inheritances will do much better. Sure, the rich kid buying a jet benefits certain things, even though it seems frivolous and pointless to the overwhelming majority of us. But you know what? I can say the exact same goddamn thing about a teacup museum.

[Edited on February 9, 2007 at 2:00 AM. Reason : ]

2/9/2007 2:00:16 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, I'm really glad the Walton family has $15 billion each. They really worked hard for it. I hope they have fun on their yachts while children are sick, hungry, and illiterate. "

2/9/2007 8:48:23 AM

But Grumpy, we're not talking about taxation in general, which I would need to do if I was advocating the removal of the estate tax, but since the tax has already been neutered we're talking about an increase in taxes. Which means we are not talking about what government usually does with money, we're talking about what Government is going to do with even more money, which invariably only includes wasting it.

I believe I can reasonably say this because all the worthwhile Government activity is already being paid for with existing taxes. So, I do not believe you can counter the ills caused by this tax (broken businesses, unfair allocation, etc) by proclaiming Government is sometimes necessary. Of course Government is necessary, but even more Government in this instance is going to be worse than the alternative which is Government at the current size.

2/9/2007 9:20:58 AM

Quote :

"It always seems that people who love taxes are the ones who don't have the requisite work ethic to attain any wealth."

I've never met anyone who loves taxes. I'm just as greedy as the rest of you, but I understand that sometimes things are bigger than me.

2/9/2007 10:00:44 AM

Simply put, it's jealousy. The have nots want to take the money away from those who have it. Redistribution of wealth by eliminating inheritance is specifically mentioned by Karl Marx in his Manifesto.

2/9/2007 11:05:04 AM

^^^^oh noes! The irrefutable logic of the rolling eyes emoticon!

Quote :

"And using that money to build a tea-cup museum is going to cure these sick, hungry, and illiterate children?"

No. But I'm not discussing whether the government misuses money or if tax rates are too high. I'm discussing whether taxing inheritance is a just form of government income.

[Edited on February 9, 2007 at 11:08 AM. Reason : ^^^^]

2/9/2007 11:08:01 AM

Well, technically speaking, no form of taxation is "just", merely necessary. From there we must determine which means of taxation inflicts the least damage to society, of which estate taxes raise very little revenue to go along with the minor damage.

2/9/2007 1:48:28 PM

another reason i favor consumption taxes.

This crap like estate taxes just gets people to alter their behavior. Thats just pure inefficiency.


We could solve a lot of the problems Democrats "fight for" like poverty, hunger, etc if the democrats didnt have such poor ideology.

They seem to think that the solution is to make everything hopelessly inefficient and to make everyone poorer as a whole instead of just compensating the poor.

2/9/2007 5:35:08 PM

^^ with that line of thinking laws arn't just, just necessary

2/9/2007 5:44:52 PM

Absolutely. It would be a better world if laws against murder and theft were unnecessary; but we do not occupy that world. It is not Just that Society is required to employ its citizens to police, arrest, try, and imprison other citizens, just necessary.

But this is all semantics, it doesn't matter why I think taxation should be a law on the books; the question is which taxes and to what extent.

[Edited on February 9, 2007 at 6:04 PM. Reason : .,..]

2/9/2007 6:03:50 PM

they arent just?
now that is a rejection of, well, all civilization if i have ever heard one.

2/9/2007 6:57:54 PM

seems pretty sheisty to me to tax me when I earn the money, tax me more when I spend what's left of my previously taxed earnings, and then tax what's left of my already-taxed efforts efforts when I die.

What's that? Sam Walton left a bunch of money to his kids? GOOD! Maybe that's his reward for working hard and being persistent, knowing that his efforts will help his heirs. The gov't already got their hands in the pot, so BACK THE FUCK OFF.

2/9/2007 10:53:28 PM

^^ There is no civilization without criminals?

2/10/2007 12:43:16 AM

I agree with aaron. Youve paid your taxes on that money already. If the govt needs money, cut spending.

2/10/2007 7:34:52 AM

^^I didnt realize that every one connected to government is a criminal. I had no idea.

2/10/2007 8:52:24 AM

I said society would be more just if we did not need to police, arrest, and imprison our citizens. You evidently objected that there is no civilization without prisoners, to which I objected. From that you evidently conclude all government officials are criminals; if you say so.

2/10/2007 3:18:12 PM

all money is taxed multiple times, the double tax thing is a fallacy
when you get income from your paycheck you are taxed on that even though it has already been taxed, why is this income different? its not, its more income and this it is taxed.

2/10/2007 3:27:44 PM

so, because money is taxed multiple times, it isn't double taxed? what stunning logic!

I'm glad to see that you are OK with the government deciding that it's OK to do with your money as it pleases

2/10/2007 3:30:33 PM

No, he's saying that saying that double taxation doesn't violate any core principal, nor it it unusual.

Quote :

"I'm glad to see that you are OK with the government deciding that it's OK to do with your money as it pleases"

You are the gov't. This isn't an us vs. them thing. Taxes are decided with due process and completely out in the open by the people we elect (I wish I could say the same about spending). If the results are drastically different than you would have them, it's b/c the people as a whole have chosen differently than you. Democracy doesn't mean having what you want all the time.

2/10/2007 3:50:16 PM