Posted on 09/23/2016 9:45:16 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
Three brackets, all higher than the current 45 percent
We’ve discussed the death tax a fair amount around here, and for better or for worse it usually breaks down to two arguments. Defenders of the tax say there’s no reason the children of rich people should feel entitled to get all their parents’ money, since they themselves did nothing to earn it. Critics of the tax respond by saying that if the parent earned the money, then it should be the parents’ decision who gets it, and at any rate there’s no particular reason the government should have a claim on it.
Did the government earn any of it?
The government already took more than it’s share in taxes along the way. But not satisfied with that, they want to swoop in a take whatever is left. What a bunch of bloodsuckers.
Its not about getting money you did not earn.
What about family farms? The kids may have worked that farm their entire lives its theirs as much as their parents why should the Government get half or more of it?
What a bout a small family business that maybe the kids worked in and helped run? Again wht should the Government get half or more of that.
The death tax is a punishment tax.
You go first Hillary.
These politicians are from Mars.
No government should be allowed to apportion itself what amount to inheritance rights.
At an absolute minimum no inheritance, income or gift that is not a fungible distribution should EVER be taxable.
The government did not earn it. Also, the gov’t would be absolutely wasteful with it as we already know.
If I were a parent, I wouldn’t want a wasteful child to blow through it either. I would take a large percentage of it and put it in some kind of dividend paying fund and give the dividend to the child.
The rest I’d just leave to the child.
She has a foundation so she gets out of death taxes.
Fine, then we stop filing, and stop sending them checks on Apr 15th.
F**K em!
People should familiarize themselves with and understand what a Ladybird will is and utilize it.
The Kenndy’s and their ilk are protected by trusts that will keep the family wealthy for centuries. Trusts cost lots to set up so you have to have much more than a comfortable amount. A comfortable inheritance is what they are after. Why should you inherit a million or even a few hundred thousand?
Mostly, I think inheritance tax is a plan to take land and small business away from families.
Now that my family owns six rentals it would be better to transfer them to an LLC or a trust. But to do that requires paying the fees all over again. If we were talking millions that isn’t a problem and the transaction would be large enough we could probably do lots of fancy things to walk away with cash. But these are ordinary amounts like your house.
It probably sounds great to those who have nothing that others with potentially inherited wealth should lose it.
There is an old Russian joke. A man is explaining socialism to a farmer.
Man: “You have two cows. You keep one and give one to the state.”
Farmer: “I get that.”
Man: “You have two chickens. You keep one and give the second one to the state.”
Farmer: “I get that.”
Man: “You have two carrots. You keep one and give the second one to the state.”
Farmer: “No way!”
Man: “Why not?”
Farmer” “I actually have two carrots.”
This isn’t “earned income”, I see no reason for the government to think they should have some automatic claim to the money - it was taxed already.
There’s another angle to this. If you inherit an estate you owe the tax on it within a specific period of time. The problem is that you may not have that kind of cash available and not be able to translate the value of the estate into cash within this period.
Also, consider the family farm. You’re an employee of your dad on a farm, you make $60,000/yr. You then inherit the farm when because your dad dies, the farm is worth $2M. You owe hundreds of thousands of dollars but this isn’t available as cash. You now have to SELL the farm to pay the taxes, leaving you without the job you had - unless the new owner keeps you on.
For these reasons I can’t support the tax, it’s just too disruptive and is effectively stealing.
People should familiarize themselves with and understand what a Ladybird deed is and utilize it.
Since all of these wealthy wall streeters and media barons are promoting he they deserve to pay it. Since Republican establishment types are helping them bring in Democrats they can pay it too.
I’ve heard this is driving much of the life insurance industry, where you’re essentially paying the tax in advance via life insurance premiums to save the family business from the tax due at death.
This is, after all, money that has already been taxed at least once. The super-wealthy already take care of that problem with trust funds and the like. Hillary should know.
“Mostly, I think inheritance tax is a plan to take land and small business away from families.”
It is simple. The really rich know the only way us normal folks have to compete is for us to hand down our accumulated wealth for a few generations and work our way up to what they have. They think they need to stop that from happening.
You worry a wasteful child? Instead of running their life with the dividend plan, I think it’s better to just let them inherit it. If they fall flat on their face, then they can enjoy the rest of their flat broke life.
If a kid isn’t responsible enough to appreciate it to the point that I had to structure it carefully for them not to screw up, Id just leave it to someone or some group that was.
Why not 120%?
The Left sees all that money and wants it!
They fail to see—or don’t want to see—that a huge amount of the money is caught up in real estate, land, and other properties that would to be SOLD to see any cash. So the inheritors of the estate might get the family farm, or house, or priceless mementoes, but have to sell them to pay off the government. So they lose them completely. How is that fair and reasonable?
The government needs to put this distinction into law, so that farms, homes and other PERSONAL properties have to be sold off.
I think it is fairly easy to make a distinction between a person owning, say, one farm, or two homes (house and vacation house), or some nice classic cars, vice those owning dozens of non-productive farms and land, multiple homes and condos, and fleets of vehicles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.