Estate tax: how about a max inheritance instead?

Instead of fighting over percentages, why not fix inheritances to a maximum of $5 million per person per estate, with exceptions for small biz and farms, and something sensible with a primary residence being handed down. Anything more than that gets taxed 100%. Screw the aristocracy.

Then, to insure the future popularity, distribute 50% of the estate tax every year as tax credits to the general populace.

Any lower than that and old people will stop buying lottery tickets.

I won't participate in class warfare on either side.

To not declare it back is to support a war against the poor. Do you happen to be rich or do you just hate your fellow commoners?

both have rights. Stop reaching for a fight.

Define your terms, so that they might be discussed.

The idea is counter to the entrepreneurial spirit. I want to reward innovation and achievement. I have no problem with the wealth of Gates, Jobs & Trump. Through their efforts they built great companies that have employed thousands of people. I do have a problem with CEO's making 500X the lowest worker in the company, having golden parachutes that REWARD BAD performance.I certainly don't support the repeal of the inheritance tax...BUT I won't tell Gate's children that they inherit $5 MILLION after what their father built

GM workers didn't drive the company into the ground...management did. They had 25 years to re-invent them selves when Toy & Honda came over here, they didn't. Badly made cars, designed poorly and over priced for what they were....NOW 25% of the GM is going to have to take early retirement. on the other side is reality. A man is NOT worth $28/hour, with NO HS diploma, to work on an assembly line....

BTW I support pension guarantees for gov't workers..not for PRIVATE industry. WHY should I pay for the pension of the Delta pilots when I don't have a pension? When the company did well, they all benefited. Now that the company is trying to survive, they have to 'compromise' like the rest that are struggling. 3 years ago, I made $1/signature collecting signatures for state petitions. Today I am making 50 cents standing in 90 degree heat....that's life!

OK, small businesses are exempt, so are small farms, in addition to the first FIVE million bucks being exempt as well. As far as I can tell, this plan's sole purpose is to minimize the rise of a permanent overclass, which already exists, by the way. You give Bill Gates as a, I think, poor example, to be honest, by the time his kids can get ANY of his inheretence, it probably will be much less than 5 million bucks for each of them. Bill Gates has stated that he wants to give away ALL his wealth before he dies, whether he suceeds or not isn't so much the question, but rather whether the money will remain in the control of his family, which may not be likely.

Problem is that people like Jobs, Gates, won't mention Trump, that's just an asshole, but those guys are ALL SMALL minorities, over 99% of the richest people in this country were BORN into it. There is nothing they DID to DESERVE that money in the first place, why have sympathy at all for them?

You mention that you have problems with taxpayers paying the pensions for the pilots at Delta Airlines, I assume you have the same problem with taxpayers paying Boeing's CEO salary?

their children the advantage..If I have to choose b/t going after the multinationals that sheltor corporate profits and pay no taxes vs changing the present structure of the inheritance tax..I would take the former. I think repealing it is horrible but I think I our present levels are acceptable....its a reasonable compromise

Why should they hit the jackpot because of the accident of popping out of the right woman's womb? Inheritance runs counter to the principles behind capitalism, and I think the only reason why it's still around is because of societal inertia.

In the next life you can come back as the child of a billionaire. Buffett is leaving NOTHING to his kids. It's THEIR choice.

That's an... interesting... way to look at it. Historically incorrect, but interesting nonetheless.

it's up to him if he wants to give it to his kids or to charity.

Gates deserves to decide what happens to the money if he earned it.

Conscientious objectors in the ongoing class war *have* picked sides.

The basis on which to evaluate the op:
1) is aristocracy a good thing?
2) does government need the money?
3) is there a compelling interest that workers should fund society instead?

The OP is proposing a system in which estates under $5m per inheritor transfer tax free. Further, he intends to pay for it by raising the taxes on bigger estates. The idea has some merit.

we should leave every citizen with as much wealth as possible as long as that wealth does not enable an undemocratic, corruption of our democracy ...

great wealth has always had its way with our democratic institutions ... efforts to remedy the problem through campaign finance reform and lobby reforms has failed miserably every single time ...

we should not view the wealthy as an enemy but neither should we continue a system that allows an extreme inter-generational amassing of disproportionate wealth ... the history of this imbalance on our democracy is all too clear ...

above some amount, an amount that would significantly weaken the corruptive capabilities of the super wealthy, estates should be taxed at 100% ... all reasonable exceptions should be accommodated for such things as small businesses, primary residences, etc ...

the goal should NOT be class warfare; it should be the protection of our democracy ...

McCain/Feingold while it may have had short term negatives for Democrats in fundraising is actually forcing them to find more grassroots sources of money since corporate PACs can't come and drop half a million dollar checks at each dinner right now. It is by no means perfect and corporate influence is still rampant in both parties but I do believe that it was a major step in the right direction.

Also remember that in Al Gore's 2000 convention speech, he said that the first bill he would send to congress was campaign finance reform. And he won the election.

This is an issue that is overwhelmingly popular with the American people and when we do eventually elect a democratic president and congress, I think that we have a real shot at getting better reform passed. The problem is that despite what their constituents say, getting congressmen to give up their sources of funding is like getting kids to give up their candy.

here's my basic position on this ...

our system is absolutely poisoned by big money ... period ...

there is a spectrum of remedies available and i have no objection whatsoever starting with the least invasive of them ... these would include major campaign reforms hopefully including publically financed campaigns ... it would also call for the immediate execution of any lobbyist who spends a penny on an elected official or of any elected official who takes a penny ...

we have got to take the profit motive out of the halls of government ... in the boardroom, fine; in our government, not fine ...

but then we come to the point where perhaps we'll disagree ... if the above measures can bring about significant progress, count me in ... i am not looking to strip wealth away from anyone if it isn't necessary ...

HOWEVER, if all the tinkering we do with election laws, and there even seems to be some SC rulings making it increasingly difficult to restrict funding to candidates, fails to compel our government to act in the best interests of ALL the people, then more draconian measures will be necessary ... are they politically viable today? of course not ... but even Democrats seem to fear acknowledging just how bought our government really is ... with education over time, and with an unyielding commitment to making the government work for all rather than just for the super-wealthy, i believe a progressively harsher set of remedies could be made palatable if earlier remedies fail ...

i really have trouble with those who will NOT make the commitment to go down this "draconian path" if it becomes necessary at some point in the future ... what's the alternative? my position on easier remedies is put up or shut up ... we've never seen them work; i'm highly skeptical they ever will ... let's give them a try but let's commit ourselves to the ultimate objective at any cost ...

a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy should never be acceptable to any of us ...

Don't get me wrong, the new deal was considered draconian at the time, and if there comes a time where things get so bad (like they were in the depression) where we have to strip a huge amount of the wealth away from those who still have it for the sake of the survival of our people, then so be it.

But one of the thing's about the New Deal (and the Great Society that came after it) is that it created many permanent laws so that ordinary Americans would never face the same peril that they did from years of neglect by the free market and the Republican administrations of the 1920s. As much as Reagan, Bush, and Bush have attempted to strip away at those laws, they have not been completely successful yet. But a few more years of Republicans in power and we might just get there.

The thing is that since the Roosevelt era, we haven't gotten to the point where a government is so far right wing that it has been such a peril to the poor and the middle class. Lobbyists no doubt had their influence over our government in the 1950's and the 1960's. Both Eisenhower and Kennedy were pressured into cutting taxes. Eisenhower said that with the cold war we couldn't afford it. Kennedy actually gave the richest Americans a HUGE tax cut. He cut the highest income bracket from 90% to 70%. Today, the highest income bracket is 35%. In the 60's the richest Americans were ecstatic that their influence in government had gotten them to pay only 70% of their income. Today they would go apeshit if their influence in government could only get them 45 or 50% and having the rich paying 70% of their income today would be a wet dream for those on the left. My point is that after the New Deal, there wasn't as much of a pressing need to take wealthy influence out of government and so campaign finance reform wasn't really tried. Now that it is such a pressing matter, campaign finance reform is being championed more and more and I think that we need to give it a little more time before we give up on it.

i was going to respond with an analysis of how the military-industrial complex is literally bankrupting the country ... i was going to respond with a discussion of how virtually all foreign policy is formulated for corporate gain ... and it sure as hell has been going on much longer than the bushies have been around ...

but i think it may be more important to comment on the subject line of this post ... i think it's fine to be "not thinking about the draconian path right now" as long as it isn't being ruled out if it becomes necessary ... that's the communication i'm afraid we often short-circuit in our intra-party squabbling ...

not sure exactly what your politics are but i am one very disgusted Democrat ... i couldn't feel more alienated by the party than i do ... i have deep respect for my Dem Congressman and for many of the progressive Dems in the House ... but they aren't the face of the party and they certainly don't control the party's direction ...

i spend a fair amount of time talking with non-voters and Greens and Democratic Socialists ... almost all of them used to be registered Democrats ... it seems to me that the Democratic Party does a miserable job, actually no job at all, talking to these constituencies ...

perhaps we can never come to a reasonable common ground ... but i see us spending so much time fighting over tactics and timing and detailed policies that communication becomes all but impossible ...

an easier task, to open what hopefully could become a meaningful dialog, would be to try to reach agreement on two things:
1. where are we now - do we agree our institutions are being destroyed by big money? do we agree that corporate welfare is devouring the federal budget? do we agree that government policies, expensive government policies like bloated weapons systems, war in Iraq, special giveaways to big oil, are killing the country? forget the resolutions - can we agree on the current view of where we are?
2. what should our objectives be? for example, if we agree big money is poisoning our democracy, can we agree that we have to take whatever measures are needed to remedy the problem? again, we need not detail our programs and policies and tactics ... but we do need to make a commitment to solve the problem and we need to recognize that nothing should be considered too "extreme" to get there ... the focus is on the commitment to the objective; not on any particular solution ...

anyway, it seems like we're very much on the same page here ... i certainly agree a "max estate" is nowhere close to politically viable right now ... but the problem "max estate" seeks to solve is very, very real and it is not being adequately addressed via other remedies ... i also appreciate your statement that perhaps we could sell draconian measures should they become necessary ... too often we dismiss the "way out theres" without a recognition that they might not be so far fetched if our party were making the case and educating voters ... just because an idea isn't mainstream today certainly doesn't mean it couldn't become mainstream ...

finally, i do worry, and this does fall into the class warfare category, that it is not a healthy situation for the country and its people to have inter-generational, massive disparities of wealth ... this need not mean i'm advocating a perfectly flat, make-everyone-the-same economic system ... but there can be no argument that there are real social costs to allowing the aristocracy to sustain itself unchecked ... "it's theirs; they should keep it" is all well and good but their rights should be subordinated to the general welfare ... we shouldn't shy away from discussions on this topic as we often do ...

gosh, perhaps i have wandered a bit far afield from the OP ... oh well ...

And for the most part we are on the same page politically. My avatar is a pretty good indication of my politics.

Let me get back to the OP. My belief is that we don't need a maximum inheritence to return to a society where all Americans can have healthcare, a good education, and a living wage. I believe that we do need to raise taxes on the rich and stop waisting money on weapons that we don't need, end corporate welfare, and make corporations actually pay their taxes.

I do, however, believe that something like a maximum inheritence tax will at this point be counter productive and will be bad for the economy. In order for anybody to have a decent standard of living, we need to have a good economy.

The bottom line is that there has to be balance. An economist will tell you that any increase in taxes, environmental standards, or safety standards is bad for business. The economist isn't wrong, but if you don't listen to the environmental advocate, the social welfare advocate, and the workplace safety advocate as well, you are going to get a society that is great for business and good for absolutely nothing else. On the same token you can't just ignore the economist either, because we need business to thrive so that people can get jobs.

As far as class warfare goes, I think it's a term that's thrown around a lot and I don't really say whether I like it or not. I don't want to punish productivity but at the same time, taxes are the price that we pay for a civilized society. The fact is that the people with the most money have to pay the most taxes, that's the only way it will work effectively. I guess if the rich want to trap the middle class and poor into economic slavery and the middle class and poor are fighting against it, I would call that class warfare. But again, I think the term is over used.

I won't even argue the merits of this proposal before pointing out the fact that we would have a better chance of getting single payer universal heatlhcare passed before this.

The estate tax debate has been completely hijacked by the right and they have managed to convince most Americans that they will have to pay the "death tax" even though in reality they will be exempt from it. A max inheritance would be portrayed as communism by the right and trust me, that is a battle that they will win no matter how hard we fight.

If this were something worth fighting for I would give it more thought, but it's really not. There are much better and more important things that we need to fight for to help the middle class and in turn fight off a permanent aristocracy.

But great idea!

at least until our country no longer has a national debt. But this doesn't mean we should eliminate the estate tax rates now paid for the first 5 million dollars worth of inheritance..especially with the babyboomers nearing retirement! Use all this money collected every year for debt reduction.

Government bonds are used as an important instrument for pension plans and foreign governments for investment purposes. They offer a truly safe haven for money. If they are not there, the money would have to flow into riskier assets.

but we can stop deficit spending and even pay down a portion of the debt. This would both increase the value of currently held government bonds while also decreasing interest rates.

...and anyone in congress who voted for it, before it would be allowed to happen.

not to the estate but to the recipients and do so progressively. So, the more you receive, the more taxes you pay, and you pay them when you pay your taxes annually (you report it on your own 1040).

This would encourage people who want to avoid taxes to leave their money to the poorest people they know (or don't know) or two tax-free entitities and it discourages people from concentrating wealth in the hands of people who don't work to earn it by leaving all their money to already wealthy people.

Stealing + government = Stealing.

government + war = killing

nobody likes paying taxes, but somebody has to pay for the billions in yearly interest payments on the growing national debt..

Less government = less killing, less stealing

That sounds good to me.

Reagan promised us less government and less taxes, but ultimately we only got more debt and higher taxes!

not small government

an honest politician will tell you that a huge amount of your tax dollars are going to fund spending programs and military projects of the past that this generation will not benefit from. an honest politician will tell you that cutting government spending doesn't cut taxes in the short run. an honest politician will say that taxes must go up and government spending must be cut for the future voters to benefit. this is why honest politicians..like Jimmy Carter and Ross Perot, almost never win! ;-)

Maybe we should ask some expatriates what they think of Mexican government.

They use public roads, our PUBLIC water system, and other utilities and systems. Not to mention that the government is stable, allowing such people to keep and enrich themselves, plus many other actions that the government does for them. Why shouldn't they pay their fair share?

gasoline tax and car fees pay for the roads, and everyone gets billed for their water usage. The government stays stable through force and authority NOT from obscene taxation. They have already contributed their fair share to society.

we spend more on the military than all the other countries combined, but still can't stop 9/11!

Strange how Canada is able to protect its citizens, provides universal healthcare, and still has a government that borrows & spends only a fraction of the money that ours does. Time for our politicians to learn a little from other democracies.

I wonder where it got that idea??

the government spends more than it taxes. We elect those who decide how our money is spent, what the role of government needs to be, and how high or low the taxes should be!

the government isn't just a shadow that thinks for itself, but an entity created to serve the people. Republicans continue spend trillions of dollars that are borrowed, but not paid for by the taxpayers. Republicans promise to cut taxes and while increasing spending, to start wars but not to pay for them, and to make laws but never enforce them! Republicans think they are entitled to more government which they don't wish to pay for.

why would you rather have a government that takes more money to fund increasing spending and corruption rather than reducing the scale of government so they don't have to take so much money.

the government is in debt..and thus so are the people it serves. Less spending and higher taxes are needed to provide a government for future generations that gives them a better return on their tax dollars. This means the current generation will get less services for the taxes paid.

In an ideal world no government would be necessary because no crime, poverty, war, sickness, or greed would exist. But we don't live in an ideal world, and to make things better for the future we now must bare a greater burden. IMO not accepting that burden is the worst form of corruption!

like a drug addict, enabling only makes things worse.

but as I stated earlier..the government isn't a shadow that thinks for itself. we elect those who make the laws, pass the budgets, and those who run the programs. The Republicans in Congress and the White House are the addicts. Before Bush came into power the federal government was run very efficiently and had yearly surpluses!

that just means they taxed more than they spent. There is no such thing as a "surplus" in government. Even Bush could eradicate the current deficit (nearing 10 trillion) if he siezed all property in the US.

the longer we allow our government to run deficits, the more inefficient our government becomes. The biggest form of government waste are the interest payments made on the national debt! "In 1993, the federal government's yearly payouts on the national debt came to $210 billion. By 2006, payments had climbed to about $430 billion." http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-05/03parenti.cfm

If there was not a national debt, we would probably have a surplus this year. Tax increases would not be necessary and the war in Iraq would be paid for. But the government has borrowed so much money that Republicans are now borrowing just to pay off past debts! When we had a surplus for several years under Clinton, at least the national debt wasn't self-perpetuating.

no doubt it is a waste of our money, but the way to deal with it is not to tax more, but spend less.

using our defense for defending the American people, not conquest of other nations, would save trillions over a decade. Repealing Bush's tax cuts would bring in yearly surpluses for the next decade, which could be used for reducing the debt. That would reduce the hundreds of billions wasted by the government every year in interest payments on the national debt!

just cutting spending will not balance the budget, just raising taxes will not result in a surplus.

:wtf: Yeah, every time I see a story about Paris Hilton, I'm thinking the same thing.

She's such a contributor: To Waste; To sloth; To the Ugly American image (behavior) etc. :puke:

:eyes:

But a role model she ain't!

A handful of people with money are thoughtful about how they spend their time and extra "chump" change. Forgive me if I've missed something, but Paris Hilton's love of humanity couldn't hold a candle to that of say, Angelina Jolie. She's a spoiled rich brat, just like the Bush Twins.

First, roads and highways are paid by a combination of taxes, gas taxes being only a part of that. For all public, and even most private, utilities like water and phone systems, its the same thing. The top 20% probably do pay the same rates for water to their homes, and for phonelines etc. However, given that thier capital gains, estate, and other taxes are actually at a LOWER rate than the rest of us, the 80% of the people pay a HIGHER rate on EVERYTHING else, than those 20%. Also, the Pentagon budget takes up almost HALF the ENTIRE budget for the United States, and the majority pay for that too, in blood and money. In times of crisis, the TRADITIONAL response to things like the great depression, rural electification, etc. has been to raise taxes, not on the middle or lower classes, but on the rich. Problem is, we are facing the worst crisis in well over 2 decades, and the rich are getting a tax break. With runaway deficit spending, a War on Terror, and possible economic collapse, we should probably return to the tax rates of the 1950s, at least till these crises have passed. But I don't see the Bush administration doing that, instead, they are practically guaranteeing that the crisis will be made worst with their tax cuts.

We're talking here about the richest 1-2% in the nation, not the rest of the nation. What you might not know is that the majority of what's inherited by the rich's offspring is in the form of investments. The capital gains of these investments accrue and accrue but are never taxed. The Estate Tax ensures that these millions and billions of untaxed dollars get taxed -- just as Joe and Jane Average Working American has their investments/401K/etc. taxed. Get rid of the Estate Tax, and these already unbelievably super-rich heirs and heiresses make off with millions and billions in untaxed loot.

You were saying something about "fairness"?

This would discourage people in the professional classes from being responsible and building up savings and investments that are so essential to our economy.

Note: I'm in favor of some measure of estate tax, but not blatant wealth confiscation.

Every time I hear working class people lecture on how THE WEALTHY should be MORE WEALTHY, it makes me want to cry.

Bull Shit! That argument does not wash.

There should always be a hefty estate tax in place so we don't turn into a disgusting government like MEXICO - where "a few" ultra-wealthy families (Dynasties) control every damn thing.

Nope I don't buy that meme, "give them more money so they invest in the USA." Nope, the disgusting uber-wealthy will take it overseas because the USA is on it's way to 3rd World Status.

If we continue to allow the RICH to NOT pay their fair share. You should not be able to will a financial Dynasty. The mere thought disgusts me. 4-5 Million is plenty for those arrogant rich descendants to live off of.

There is a big difference between someone having $5 million and $500 million or $5 billion.

If one wants to eliminate an inherited aristocracy, one must eliminate gifantic inheritances. $5 mil is plenty to live comfortably on, or to invest in a new venture to make lots more money. It's a compromise, you see?

In a nation where it will take a million saved up just to live at a consistent standard of living, I don't think $5 million is necessarily all that much.

The spoiled brats of the ultra wealthy are blessed to keep 5 million untaxed. I'd take it all if I were in charge. :P

For example, if a person has $10 million and $5 million of that is invested in the credit markets of this nation, he is helping to keep borrowing costs down for everyone by raising prices of bonds and thus lowering interest rates. If you took that "excess" five million away and did it to tens of thousands of other people you could do real serious damage to the stability of our credit markets. The ultra wealthy, those with $500 million or more, I don't care what is done to them, but I would still be opposed to outright confiscation of all assets. That could cause enormous disruption. There are much better ways of raising revenue.

Instead of relying on idealism and pipe dreams to dictate economic policy, actually think through what might happen. For example, tariffs always sound like a great idea until you realize that what happens is that a domestic producer raises prices through the roof, hurting consumers, and not hiring enough to offset the cost.

A tax exemption for being born in a wealthy family.
By repealing the "estate tax" we are creating a special class of citizen who is exempt from paying taxes on income awarded through birth.
I pay taxes on all money I work hard for. I resent that some individuals would not pay taxes on income they did not work for and "earned" though birth.

It's not like the spoiled rich brats will have to live from hand to mouth, i.e., they'll still have MILLIONS.

Yes, the Bush twins and Paris Hilton are oh, so, worthy. NOT!

Sometimes I like to imagine how those poor girls would cope having to work at McDee's or Walmart. <snicker>

Class War?

Yes Boss Man - I'll have another! ... brought to us by the GREED of the ghoulish right wing of the republican party. :P

But I do have a problem with individuals that received unearned or earned income from a deceased person untaxed.

I don't believe that we all know the true status of those that receive anything from small businesses or family farms. One problem is that people believe that the whole business or family farm is inherited by the individual(s). They don't inherit it all if they have an interest in it as a partner or other interest. Likewise, if the spouse is living do they pay an inheritance tax? Probably not. They most likely have it set up to avoid that type of situation. If they don't it is their fault.

As of yet I have not heard any factual accounts of any family farm going bankrupt because of the inheritance taxes.

the Estate Tax. The GOP claim that the Estate Tax "harms family farms and small businesses" comes straight out of the talking points pamphlet from conservative think tanks.

and her extended family lost their ranch due to estate taxes.

That's worth about $100 apiece :)

I don't like this tax. Income, Property, etc. Those are okay. But why take away money that people have earned that would go to their children, wives, etc. What's the rationale for this? They're dead, sad, let's take away their hard-earned money. Yes, it does affect the rich MUCH more, but the rich are still people too. They work hard, take risks, have initiative. they deserve to have more money than a person who is content to spend their life doing nothing. How would you like it if you saved up money to give to your family when you died. And the government took half of it. Tax them more during life if you want, but I don't like getting rich off their deaths. All of this is just opinion though. I accept it as law and it's no huge deal.

But your idea is much worse and detrimental. Class warfare is not good. Everyone wants to get the other guy. If someone gets rich, okay it doesn't hurt me. They employ me, run the businesses. Without the rich, we'd be screwed. They often worked hard and took risks. They found our companies, they keep us in a good standard of living. Reward people for creativity, determination, intelligence. That's the foundation of America. Anyone can work their way up. Why go and steal their money to give to people who took no part in the work? That's communist. Sure, give them necessary stuff like health care, education, housing if you want. Just don't steal all their money.

Please don't take this hard. I'm not criticizing anyone; just the law and the proposed new law. I don't like the concept of the first and anything about the second ;)

people don't like paying taxes, but government exists to enforce the law and to protect our rights. The estate tax isn't great, but neither is the income tax or the sales tax. If our yearly deficits weren't largely the result of the hundreds of billions in yearly interest payments funding those who own federal bonds, then balancing the budget would be much more achievable!

But most people want Medicare, Social Security, and a well defended country..but we all hate paying higher taxes to fund them! At least the inheritance tax takes this big portion of wealth after a person's death, and not just a larger amount while alive. Nobody likes to pay takes, but we all want to have a good credit record for the future.

Yeah, I just don't like the idea of taxing hard earned money meant for the grieving family members. Of course, I think we should cut the budget. But, as that probably won't happen, I'd just feel better if they increased the taxes on the rich or something like that. If I were rich, I would rather pay taxes on earned income than know that half of the money I'd saved up for my heirs would be taken. It's sad how there's a penalty for trying to support your surviving family members and a bonus for wasting all your money. Just my humble opinion. Still, I think it's just pitiful how so many DUers think of the rich as endless barrels of free money.


(In response to the class struggle stuff)
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

I will only see a doctor for a few minutes, but he gets paid as much as $100 for doing almost nothing!

The least we can do is help those who go in debt to get basic medical care and those who work tirelessly at the minimum wage! This isn't about rich vs. the poor, its about raising revenue without hurting those who need the most help. It isn't about class warfare, but about a strong economy with richer consumers. It isn't about viewing people as barrels of money, but as fellow humans who must be helped when times get tough!

Sure, we need to help with basic needs. But stuff like the original poster said are just ludicrous. Take ALL their money when they die. That kind of stuff really annoys me. Many democrats DO view the rich as barrels of money. "Hey! They got bigger tax cuts than we did.He got 1,000$ while I only got 10$. All the tax cuts should be the same. Never mind that I only paid 100 dollars while he paid a million." There has to be a balance between helping the poor and exploiting the rich. Way back in the Middle Ages, the local kings and nobles often had money problems. So they'd rob the rich Jews. I don't like how that mentality is returning; we deserve their money even though we didn't work for it. Social programs are good, if not too extreme, IMHO.

a payroll tax in return for a benefit for those who pay.

regarding being extreme, I don't think that helping the disabled or unemployed is stealing from the rich. I do think that cutting taxes now is stealing from future generations. That is cutting future government while also raising future taxes. Most importantly this poster isn't supporting taking all the money of the wealthy when they die, but rather taking 100% of part of any estate that exceeds five million. That may not be great, but neither is this war in Iraq.

Whoa! Back the beret wearing dude up!?!

Estate tax = bad ---> gotta give my wealth to my kids ... instead of THEY working themselves. :thumbsdown:

Social Programs are GOOD as long as the ultra-wealthy don't have to pay their fair share. :wtf:

I'm at a complete loss. :shrug:

Your avatar and me say HELL YEAH!

But being compassionate Americans 4-5 million is reasonable for the heirs to keep (and much more than most of them deserve - after all, they did NOT earn *any* of the wealth).

In my opinion, they pay their taxes and that's that. I don't see why you should penalize those that work hard to save money. It's THEIR money they saved. I guess it's just a difference of opinion and I agree to disagree.

BTW-If they only can keep 4-5 million, I bet that suddenly they'd spend it all or move away. We wouldn't get it.

BTW2-I heartily support the rich giving away money. Giving away 30 something billion dollars means that the person is a GREAT person. I just don't support compulsive giving when the stuff has already been paid for.

taxing an estate isn't taxing those who worked for that money, but taxing those who inherit that money.

Again..unless I seriously misunderstood what this poster who started this threat is embracing, the first $5 million of the estate would become untaxed. I don't entirely support this because I also believe the current estate tax should remain. Taxes exist to not to penalize those who work, but to produce the kind of legal environment which makes earning money possible for all citizens. Replacing the progressive income tax with a regressive national sales tax is something neocons think is great, but it will only hurt business and increase the cost of living to such extent that saving money becomes another luxury for only the wealthy.

You can't penalize the dead. Their kids might have to get by on a million or so apiece. After having been given fine educations & trust funds.

What do you mean by "those that work hard to SAVE money"? NOBODY can get rich just by saving.

go away-

You have been brainwashed. The below will illustration the false premise of your thinking. I don't blame you. You read what's out there. You listen to what on the radio. You watch what's on TV.

OK - when people buy stock or property, it appreciates in value and they sell it for profit.

When they sell it, they pay capital gains tax on the profit. RIGHT?

OK, Old Man Barnes started a company when he was young.

Mr. Barnes' company grew to be worth $100,000,000. But Barnes never sells the company.

He NEVER paid taxes on the gain of the worth of his company. He paid taxes on the income, but never the capital gain.

OK, Barnes dies and leaves the business, now worth $100 million, to his son.

Now. What do you suggest happens?

BTW: I have YET to see ONE EXAMPLE of someone not working as hard or being as creative once they enter into a higher tax bracket...

And it's a good thing - The ultra wealthy have been screwing over the working and middle class since Reagan and his ghouls landed in the White House.

It's time to fight back! :woohoo:

That could just be a lawyer or doctor who has invested well. I've dealt with people who easily have that much money. They aren't these blood sucking vampires you make them out to be. They are just like the rest of us. They are not an aristocracy. That title belongs to people like the Kochs and the Hiltons.

I'm sure that there will be other countries that will be willing to grant citizenship to wealthy Americans in exchange for a smaller cut in in the inheritance tax (anything under 100% would beat your plan).

First off, the estate tax is easy to avoid by anyone. It's called a trust. An account (or series of) that hold money with a group ownership (such as a family), so that when one person in the trust dies (dear old dad), the trust is still owned by those that remain without taxation. The trust, much like a company, can hold property, cash, or other investments and continues regardless of who is still living as long as there is at least 1 member of the trust living. This is how the wealthy avoid estate tax now and will continue to in the future, regardless of the 'estate tax'.

And what rich person wouldn't put their money in untouchable offshore accounts if they had enough to do it before they died?

And anyone who wants to leave a business to a loved one can give them ownership or partnership before death, also avoiding taxes to a large extent.

So really, this discussion is for the most part silly and moot, the estate tax is easily avoidable by anyone with enough money to understand it properly, which apparently doesn't encompass very many people posting on this topic.

So here's the deal, and what should be being discussed here:

This is simple political posturing by the GOP that plays to their base in election runups, its a total win situation for them. The GOP has got you all arguing among yourselves over whether there should be an estate tax, essentially arguing about something you don't fully understand with one another -- and judging by this post they have succeeded in dividing you. Their base doesn't understand it either, but they all agree with it because of the general subject matter, and all they know is that their money is safe for Junior, regardless of what the true laws are (most people don't face estate taxation anyway).

Mission Accomplished GOP!

The trustee "owns" whatever is the corpus of the trust - money, land, old dirty magazines, etc. The beneficiary is the person who gets the benefits of the trust. So the land is ostensibly owned by a bank or other trustee but the person gets the benefits of the trust.