Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (9271)	6/10/2006 4:45:51 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

A million sounds like a lot to me, but it's really not. Lots of people have an estate that big, particularly if they inherited land or real estate themselves. Maybe if the ceiling were raised to 100 million I'd feel better about it, but I still don't get the principle that says we tax you when you earn it and we tax you again when you die. The taxes paid from the estate come out of the inheritance of the beneficiaries, so they pay it one way or another.

To: Jim S who wrote (9271)	6/11/2006 8:22:14 AM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

The death tax is a crock of shit that harms the mini rich or middle class who invested and saved. You think 1.1 is a lot of money? That's crazy, there are many with IRA's above that. So you save and invest and get to retirement and your wife dies and you have 3.5 million in estate and walla, you get to pay inheritance tax on your own fucking money. It's a damn license to steal on money that has already been taxed. Now your 20 million and above folks have trusts and shit so it doesn't effect them. Hell the Kennedy's have never paid a penny on the death tax. Now there is a fair tax if I've ever seen one.

To: Jim S who wrote (9271)	6/11/2006 6:51:58 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

And, the taxes that are paid are paid from the estate, not by the beneficiaries. that's the funniest thing I have ever read

To: Jim S who wrote (9271)	6/13/2006 3:48:41 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

The immoral Death Tax must be abolished. There should be no taxation without respiration. In order to accumulate an estate, legally acquired money will almost always have been net of taxes. If we must have an estate tax, it should be limited to money that was acquired without taxes being paid. (Such as tax the estate only up to the excluded gains on sale of personal residence.) People suggest that there is some threshold that is acceptable. Only estates over $X million, or only 5% estate tax rate. The problem is Congress cannot resist minor changes. If it is abolished permanently, a later Congress will have to go on record voting to for it. If it is 5%, what harm is there in 7%, then ten? If estates over $30M are taxed, why not lower that to $25M? Why not neglect to adjust the exclusion for inflation? In terms of revenue to the government which will generate greater revenue for the treasury the estate tax or the money in the hands of spendthrift heirs? On a $100M estate at 50% the treasury gets $50M plus up to 20 times the income tax rate of 28% on a margin of say 20% (some will be services). That would be $106,000,000. If they took zero tax it would be $112,000,000, or more revenue. This is before considering the saving rate and capital formation from the profits earned by the people who earned the revenues. The average estate is spent in 18 months by the heirs. The money courses through the economy. We are left with less money for the treasury in the short run, and lower economic growth in the long run. These are the tangible "benefits" of an estate tax. (They sound like costs to me.) So what is the justification then for an estate tax? I believe it is the Robin Hoods syndrome. Look at Warren Buffet's estranged wife's estate. $2,600,000,000 and all but $100,000,000 was shielded from estate taxes by donating it to the liberal Buffet Foundation. Perhaps the difference in values between Warren who professes to believe that the estate tax is a good idea and his ex-wife who avoided most of it is why they could not stay together? Oops, Warren has said he is going to avoid most of it on his estate too, so instead of Warren putting his money where his mouth is, the treasury will lose out on a $20 Billion windfall. Hypocrisy seems to be an interesting word to recall the next time he speaks on the subject.