What's wrong with a 100% inheritance tax?

Your right to property is underwritten by the lives of our armed services personel, our rule of law and our system of western government... when you were born, you had no assets and no property... and it equates that when you die, similarly, you leave with no assets.

A 100% inheritance tax would re-balance the federal budget and lead to a long term shift towards social values, as "old" money would become a thing of the past.

If someone wanted to give some money away before they die, that is cool... income tax... but once you croak, you have no right, postumously, to control any property.

i heard a discussion that dealt with the concept that inheritance, and the rules and customs that governed it, is one of the oldest concepts of law.

it's pretty hard to undo that kind of history.

But progressives debunk it as obsolete... it sounds the defense on history grounds is just defense without educated opposition. 100% is the right thing, as when the state goes bankrupt, the property rights will go away... just like in iraq.

Serve your country, loot a rich nieghborhood... never thought i'd hope for the return of robin hood... never did i think ameirca would get to the stage of needing one.

See http://www.w-rat.com/submissions_GUILDING_POSTERITY.html

it would be least enforceable on people with money. The State gets your family farm but Microsoft's corporate governance decides if Bill Gates VII can sell MSFT.

First, if I had 10 million dollars and was feeling mortally ill, and there were a 100% inheritance tax, I'd either hire all my relatives as caretakers and pay them really high salaries (which would be taxed at 39% or lower), or I'd start a corporation to make widgets and pay out dividends to all my shareholder relatives (taxed at 15%). I'd make all payments due on my death.

Second, a 100% inheritance tax would prevent money from circluation to people who could use it. Inheritances should probably be taxed as income to the recipient, so that if you give to rich people, they'll pay more tax on the gift and if you give to poor people, they'll pay lower taxes. That way, testators who don't want their money taxed would give more of their money to poor people, which would encourage a circulation of money to people who need it more, which is good quasi-Keynsian economics.

money BEFORE they die. If they found a miracle cure, they'd become paupers and wards of the state, and the taxpayer would have to support them if they're greedy friends and relatives didn't give their gifts back.

Leaving back his children with no income, because of 100% tax???

I feel stupid for not noticing that!

Jewelry, precious metals, etc. and make damn sure there was no paper trail. Also create a credible cover story that I'd gone on a multinational spending binge and blown it all on wine, women, and song.

And I think it was wrong to repeal it, even temporarily. However, I think that many people work hard, and put a little away so that they have a little to leave their family when they die. I mean, theoretically, based on your 100% inheritance tax plan, when a husband dies, the wife would have to liquidate thier assets to give half their value to the government. Tell me that would make us popular with middle America.

indeed, the joint property state is an issue... perhaps the liquidation takes place when both of them die, and just cash assets are done before then.

Every one of us has worked hard for what we have in life, and the distortions that keep things "unfair" are those who get a free ride like AWOL on money and priviledge bought by money not earned. Certianly such a policy would end family dynasty politics and corporate governance which has done nothing to improve ameircan democracy... repealing death taxes to zero is voting for feudalism.

so much about lazy rich boys floating through life... UNTIL they buy my government. THAT is when their arrogant behavior affects me. I don't think that changing inheritance tax laws would make as much of a difference here as CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM would.

Certianly such a policy would end family dynasty politics

That's true, none of the Soviet Premiers were related to one another.

Single moms wouldn't get a house and 50-100 kilobucks, but the rich fuckahs would figure out how to pass their ga-jillions along just as always...

Seems to be a rather extreme interpretation of "Naked Ye came from the womb, naked shall Ye return..."

he said the single most importnat thing that made it a true democracy was the elimination of the rule of primo genitor, meaning the forced inheritance. De Tocqueville posited that true democracy can not survive if you allow accumulated wealth to be passed from generation to generation.

the greatest cause of pauperism was the minimal amount of "welfare" that existed at the time.

Just rob the dead at a time when they can't do anything about it. Boy, if you want to see money fly OUT of this nation, this is the law for you.

Why is everyone else entitled to my families meager wealth simply because I died?

Homes wouldn't appreciate in value if upon death the house became property of the US Government to sell. What would be the incentive to start businesses or create anything if at the end of the day everyone had a built in zero net worth?

belongs to our family, it is a family venture. It doesn't make much money, usually we're in the red with it, but we keep it for sentimental reasons. We've had it for generations. We've all put in money and sweat and tears, even though it currently belongs to our dad on paper. If he died tomorrow, that place is DAMN SURE not going to the Bush administration. It belongs to our family. And we ain't rich.

I was waiting for someone to say this. This situation is actually far more common than the rich leaving money for their rich spawn.

I know my own parents were able to afford a much more comfortable retirement because of the financial wisdom of my dad's parents. They ain't rich, but they're enjoying a well deserved retirement. If we had a 100 percent inheritance tax, they wouldn't.

be sold to pay inheritance taxes for at least the 30 years they investigated.

Also, inheritance taxes only started at several million dollars. Nobody in my family will be dying with several million dollars so I don't have to worry about being taxed for inheriting more than that.

Even as the only male in the immediate family and all that crap I ain't getting it from my grandparents. Neither is my mom. We both have homes. Who is?

My poor trailer park living sister will finally have a home without wheels. My grandparents worked hard and wanted to be able to pass something back to the family.

Are you going to go and snag the family farm, the local family-owned businesses and homes from people to give it up to the government?

An inheritance tax I can deal with. 100% inheritance tax is way over the line for me.

but if I knew there would be a 100% inheritance tax, I would not bust my ass to save anything for my kids...I'd probably sell my house at age 70 and go on a spending spree...then fall back on social security for my final years. Do we really want to encourage that? I think its perfectly fine for families to pass along homes/cash to their kids. That's what most people work for in the first place...to give their kids/grandkids a better life than they had.

Property taxes ,the bank takes unbelievable amounts of interest at the start of your home loan, not to mention property taxes ! Then after 30 years you finallly pay off your home , feeling pride in it knowing tht its yours to do with as you please ,including leaving it to your children when you die. Then when you do pass away ,your children are accessed a tax based on the value of the estate, I never understood this double tax ,and if the Dems ever want to become the majority party ,this is exactly the kind of thing they had better not be advocating ! I believe it is fair to raise the amount the estate must be worth B/4 the tax kicks in .With the increase in home values ,its not that hard for a middle class person that worked hard all their life ,to end up with an estate worth close to a million dollars !

when you save the cash, you pay capital gains on interest...and when you spend it, another chunk is gone with sales tax. The way I see it--there is no escaping taxation, period...Even if the estate tax were 0%, the money would be saved/spent eventually and the government will get it's fair share.

Just like my wealthy Aunt did, all one must do is distribute your wealth before you die.

I am not one who will leave a large estate. All that my husband and I have is taxed already. We'll leave a house and some modest assets. Those things will go to my children whether it's after we die, or if the tax situation is out of control as the plan you recommend, well I'll sign it all over to 'em before the curtain falls on my final act. Easy.

Julie

if you give away lots of money and die within a year (or so -- check the law in your state) of giving it away, it's included in your estate.

That if we had something even vaguely close to this tax, I would wait till I got older, sell everything and give CASH to my kids. Totally untraceable. Tax that.

Imagine dad driving home from work gets hit by a truck and dies. Family is now homeless.

great idea.

Government: "We have to wait until more people crash and die so we'll have money to fix the roads and bridges."

there are so many ways to skate around this it's not funny. It only hurts people of modest means who don't have enough to use the means to bypass this.

Try again.

try to save their money for their descendants.

Inecntive-based capitalism (though we've learned that it does require a regulatory presence to trim excesses) is the strength (or was, depending how you look at it) of the American Republic.

This puts an end to all of that.

And hey, what about the poor person who gets a couple thousand from mom or dad?

Do they have to give this up, as well?

Working hard to make a better life for your children is (or was, depending on how you look at it) what the Areican Republic is/was all about.

a 100% inheritance tax is very worth considering ... but i don't think it's the right policy ... nor does it have any chance of becoming law ...

the objective of good tax policy should be to:

1. provide a "fair" system of taxation (whatever that means)
2. raise enough money to provide for the social welfare
3. restrict massive accumulations of wealth that will always distort the balance of power in a democracy
4. allow citizens to retain as much of their earnings as possible provided the first three tests are met

so, what should the policy be regarding inheritance tax?

the greatest danger to democracy is CLASS WARFARE ... the wealthy have always been able to buy a government that caters to their needs ... the idea of "one man, one vote" is nonsense when we allow 1% of our citizens to accumulate 60% or more of the nation's wealth ... inheritance taxes should not be levied based on a percentage ... they should be levied based on an absolute dollar amount ... in fact, i would like to see all tax laws structured to restrict wealth to about $2 million per individual and $4 million per family ... the amounts are arbitrary ... the objective is not ... the cutoff should be set to an amount that makes it far less likely we will be governed by an aristocracy ... setting that amount to zero is unnecessary and politically impossible ...

we don't have to view the wealthy as evil ... but we do need to understand that big money equates to big power ... big disproportionate power ... even some who are very wealthy understand this ... not all who are wealthy are our enemies ...

your suggestion of a 100% inheritance tax is too harsh ... it achieves very little at a huge political cost ... proposing this as a policy would probably not even pass if all the voters were DU'ers ... your goal of a "long term shift towards social values" is a good one ... but a more balanced tax policy than the one you proposed would be a better way to achieve it ...

I notice how much of a burden the tax system itself imposes on the public in terms of an extra-judicial court system without due process, invasive policing undermining social liberties, tax preparation services to understand obscure tax code and interest free loans to the government in terms of over-withholding... and the current mess makes me sick just that i pay taxes to employ a bunch of jokers who break down my civil liberties to squeeze me for cash....

I just figure that dead people are the least likely to complain about their tax situation, only greedy relatives.... and the inheritance tax could be tweaked to fill the bush-deficit and refill the coffers of all the money they've stolen from the public purse... as a tax rise is the only other alternative when the credit cards go over limit.... and with deficit spending as it is, i'm curious how a responsible government might reform taxation.

I like your idea, just when "wealth" is on the tax return, its very complicated involving lots of disclosures, a huge IRS department, huge armies of audit accountants, and tax attourneys who's job it is to sqeeze the least taxes from your life... etc... and this bunch of leeches must not always exist? yes?

How about eliminating all taxes except a 15% sales tax on all transactions... like VAT in europe, except on ALL transactions except food and medicine... but including financial market transactions and such... a flat consumption tax would not require tax forms filing, as it would be deducted and remitted (witheld) by the bank when a transaction is executed... this way, a fair, globally applicable tax can operate without bias towards one group or another... requiring no filings, and mimimal policing of banks for compliance. Since salaries are paid to banks, and all larger money transactions are inter-bank, the tax would be unavoidable.

I like your idea about a wealth capped inheritance tax, although its the devil incarnate for plutocrats... There must be a simple way to get away from the stupid income tax based system towards an approach that is lighter weight and more fair... just where the 522 billion extra bucks to cover shrub's unaccountability will come from, i'm curious... tax rises anyone?

Under a one-hundred-percent taxation system like this, if your father leaves you the watch that his grandfather wore on his wedding day, you owe the government one hundred percent of the value of said watch. The piano your grandmother played as a child? It has value and you owe the government one hundred percent of it.

Of course, what something is appraised at by the government is often at odds with what it can be sold for at auction. So, the government appraises your father's estate at $250,000. (A small number considering real estate/real property/stocks). You manage to sell everything for $235,000. You suddenly owe the government $15,000 out of pocket along with fees for dispersing the estate.

I don't know about you, but a tax bill for $15,000 would cripple me.

So, you've just created a horrible Depression while giving the government unbelievable powers.

How about eliminating all taxes except a 15% sales tax on all transactions... like VAT in europe, except on ALL transactions except food and medicine... but including financial market transactions and such... a flat consumption tax would not require tax forms filing, as it would be deducted and remitted (witheld) by the bank when a transaction is executed...

i'm afraid this medicine is worse than the disease ... sales taxes are very regressive ... the solution you proposed would eliminate the bloated tax laws surrounding income tax preparation, but would be a horrible financial burden to most taxpayers ... the wealthy do not spend as high a percentage of their earnings as do poorer citizens ... this is the ultimate fallacy of the trickle down argument ... wealthy taxpayers are far more likely to save and / or invest their money (or "disappear" it offshore)... and even if you tax financial transactions at the same rate, this would be a huge windfall to wealthy taxpayers and would do nothing to "make their piles of money" smaller ... for me, that has to be an objective ... big money = big power ... you just cannot have even a pseudo-democracy when massive accumulation of wealth goes unchecked ...

btw, exempting food and medicine from sales tax is always a good idea ... in massachusetts, we also exempt clothing ...

the problem you cited regarding the complexities and costs of the current income reporting system is very real ... the tax code, which has evolved for all sorts of both good and bad reasons, has gotten way out of control ... some of the rules are good ones ... for example, families incurring large medical bills should be given a break ... or people who donate to charity ... some of the rules try to deal with very specific financial arrangements ... for example, two friends buy a house together by jointly taking out a mortgage ... but only one makes the mortgage payments ... can they each take half of the tax deduction for the mortgage interest ... this interest was made deductible to stimulate homebuilding and make home ownership more affordable ... millions of americans could not afford their homes if this deduction were eliminated ...

the point of all this is that many of the tax laws serve a valuable social purpose ... your "sales tax" plan would be a horrible blow to non-profits that rely on the tax deductibility of contributions ... i believe the tax code needs an almost total overhaul ... but we need to be careful when changes are made to ensure that we serve the people most in need ...

While we're at it, let's take away the incentive to make the government balance its budget by controlling costs.

:crazy:

Farms that have been in the same family for generations.

Would all the family farm owners on DU please speak up.?? none... indeed, the reality of the straw man.... the family farm no longer exists.... and the argument that its taking away the food source of a family in poverty just is bunk...

Farms are big business like microsoft... what you're really saying is that bill gate's kid needs "all" his microsoft shares for a proxy fight 30 years from now.

A study was done 1-2 years ago going back 30 years.

Never happened! Just a made-up story!

What did happen was that some people from very wealthy families received a lot of money (whose investment growth had NEVER been taxed) that they did not work for and they were OUTRAGED that they had to pay taxes on it. So, ever since then they've been spending lots of their inherited money trying to get the laws changed.

Think about it!

Too flawed and lame. You really want to give all your money away to the government when you die? I doubt it.

I agree with an inheritance tax. But what exactly is the point of working your whole life if you can't leave anything to your children? The government does not, and never will, own other peoples money. We can tax them to provide better government services. But we can never, even in death, take everything. The idea is implausible and an election killer.

Nothing wrong with people passing on homes and some modest property, though.

That sounds fair.

At a HIGHER rate than an equivalent amount of income (why should someone who did nothing to earn that money get the same tax rate as someone who worked for it?) but 100%? Nope. That's just punitive.

a deduction, like let's say 100% after debt settlement for the deceased and a generous amount like $10,000 for burial. Most rich people give away the majority of their estates to heirs in trust funds anyway before they die so there isn't that much left to tax. Taking the whole 100% would penalize the poor middle class more than anyone else.

to accumulate assets that i leave to my wife and kids to provide for their future, What right does the government have to take that money?


Or try this;

You have worked all of your life and you have been successful, you have a million dollars!

Along I come and pull out my gun and force you to hand over all of it leaving you, your wife, and kids destitute,

How would you feel about that? Would you think it is right? and just? Would you feel that I had more of a right to that money than you because I think I can spend it better? because I think I can benefit more people with it than you can?

Would it be right?

1. You can leave it ALL to your spouse with no inheritance tax. Any amount of money and property can be inherited by a spouse without triggering any tax.

2. You can set it up in trusts, give some to charity, give some to your kids before you die. These techniques reduce your estate and thus any exposure to inheritance tax. They also allow you to ensure that money is available for the upbringing and education of children.

3. If you worked all your life for what you have, you probabaly invested and what you now have is the growth of your original investment over time. That growth has NEVER been taxed so when the several million (nothing below that is subject to inheritance tax) transfers to someone other than a spouse, why shouldn't it get taxed?

4. Why are Republicans so adamant that poor people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps (as if they have boots) but peoply with wealthy relatives should receive millions without working for it and also should pay no taxes on the receipt of the millions?

your "gun" analogy not withstanding, we DO NEED to have a system of taxation ...

the theme of your argument that opposes mandatory redistribution of income is nonsense ... you failed to draw any limit whatsoever ...

Would you feel that I had more of a right to that money than you because I think I can spend it better? because I think I can benefit more people with it than you can?

Would it be right?

Suppose instead of holding you up at gunpoint and taking ALL your money, I wanted to have a system that provided public education, took care of the elderly, took care of the very ill, provided for the defense of the country, provided support for scientific research, provided for the costs of elections, etc. etc ...

And, suppose you were wealthy enough to "buy" the votes of elected officials ... suppose you and your wealthy friends were able to hire the most skilled lobbyists in the land to "have things your way" ... is it just possible that's the way things work in this country?? is that OK with you ??

Your argument makes it sound like it's never OK for the "government" to "take your money" for taxes because some people think they can "spend it better" than you can ... well, i for one, disagree with you ...

Big money is making a mockery of our democracy ... corporatism is enabling the very wealthy to win the class war ... it results in bad policies ... it put profits before people ... it favors the rich at the expense of the poor ...

so ... the answer to your question is: NO, it would not be right to "hold you up at gunpoint to take your money" ... but it would be OK to have a tax system that takes away enough of your money to ensure that you cannot buy the votes of our elected officials ... and it would be OK to ensure that the bests interests of the society are put ahead of your personal monetary goals ...

perhaps you can clarify how our tax policies should be structured ... but the argument you made earlier does not sound too progressive to me ...

I think parents and family work very hard to give their children Inheritance. They shouldn't have all that money they worked so hard for to provide for the family be snatched away once they die.

But I still don't have any problem with resonable inheritence taxes that are progressive.

that is more about making a point than solving a problem, namely funding. Sure, you could give it away, which is what trusts and estate planning is all about. It would also piss off just about everyone.