Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[UMStan White]

I second that position

[AlabamAlum]

With the reaction he gets, soporofic is not the word I would have chosen.

But I like the word. Reminds me of the movie "Wit".

[SeattleLionsFan]

Looks like autocorrect changed sophomoric on me. ;)

[AlabamAlum]

Haha...that makes more sense.

[AlabamAlum]

By the way, if you're interested in watching the movie "Wit," it is available in its entirety on YouTube.

[iam416]

As to the "it's already been taxed" canard, all income has been taxed (over and over). My wages were taxed previously, yet there's no problem with taxing it. Because it is new to me. Just as an inheritance would be new to me.

Yeah, this is a pretty awful argument. You're better off just making the "windall" or "they're rich" argument and owning it. This is intellectually bad.

[SeattleLionsFan]

How so?

[iam416]

all income has been taxed (over and over). My wages were taxed previously, yet there's no problem with taxing it.

This position literally supports any conceivable tax which, IMO, renders it meaningless.

Even when limited to "it's new to me" it's still such a massive generalization that, IMO, it's meaningless. It literally directly and indisputably supports taxing any gift of any sort, including, e.g., Christmas presents.

It's a statement that only shows that Government "can" tax it. Well, duh. "Can" is never the question; should is the question. The government CAN set up a hugely regressive tax system if it wants. That doesn't get to the SHOULD at all.

And there's no question, whatsoever, that folks making the argument against the Death Tax are aruging the should/should not when they talk about the "morality" of taxing your money twice. There are specific policy-based reasons as to why the government SHOULD be allowed to do so. But merely responding that they "can" is nonresponsive.

[entropy]

You guys can disagree without the name calling.

[entropy]

Coming from a farming community, I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. Fundamentally, I think we should be promoting savings, not discouraging it.

[iam416]

I don't necessarily disagree that estates shouldn't be taxed. Were it up to me, I'd explore allowing free transfers of real property, in whole, without any stepped up basis. Then when it is sold, paying normal tax rates. I'd also tax the rest of the inherited property as income to the heir. I don't know why inherited wealth should be given priority treatment over earned wealth.

BTW, SLF, I mostly agree with this. I think you could go along way to alleviating "death tax" concerns by exempting real property (and, for that matter, non-monetary assets). I'm still less than sympathetic to the brazen money grab by the government so I'd have a really significant deduction and I wouldn't tax it at income rates -- so, you know, as it's done now.

Most good estate lawyers can avoid the brunt of this already by, as you said, getting the funds to folks before death.

[entropy]

And if a husband and wife are in the 50's and died in a car accident only to leave their children with farm land or a salvage yard, the kids have no choice but to sell..

So we have a tax system with "outs" for those who can lawyer up or plan in advance. Makes zero sense to punish some while the elite rich class work around it. Any changes to the tax will only impact the middle class, imo.

[iam416]

Right. That's why I'd exempt real property from the calculation, Entropy. So the farm or salvage yard wouldn't count. If you're only taxing money or financial instruments, then you necessarily have the money available to you -- you may not think it's fair that you only get 75% (or whatever) of that money, but it's something you can manage.

But, you're right, when you factor in real property that means you may have to come up with money pay the death tax.

SLF, as I read his post, agrees with you (and me) on that front.

[Wild Hoss]

Coming from a farming community, I'm not a fan of inheritance tax. Fundamentally, I think we should be promoting savings, not discouraging it.

What we learned in school of course, was that its intent was to prevent the development of a landed aristocracy...so it is a roadblock towards the formation of the sovereign lands of New Valparaiso, ruled by the benevolent Entropy the First (May our Lord God grant him wisdom, and peace for his People. All six of them).

That injustice aside, the concept is probably due for a upgrade in a the modern economy. The retention of family farms doesn’t seem to be a pressing threat to our democracy in 2016...not in a time when Talent is roaming the digital countryside, unfettered and unchecked.

[entropy]

I would be a great King. Just ask me..