Estate Tax

[chango]

You support the idea of taking money you never earned. I support the idea of having to produce something of value to earn money.

You contradict yourself. Tagg Romney doesn't have to produce anything to inherit Mitt's money.

 

[iatrogenic]

I don't remember stating that Mitt Romney should give Tagg anything. I do recall stating that Mitt should have the right to do what he wishes with what he earned. Nor do I believe HRC should pass along Russia's uranium money to Chelsea when she dies.

 

[Monahorns]

What right does the government have to take away a person's money/assets after he has died? I don't get the whole idea 1) that the default is that the government gets to take and 2) that it is aristocratic to give your belongings to whoever you want to receive them.

Do individuals have property rights and freedoms or not? Because if they really don't or if they are allowed to have property by the mercy of the government than the government can use any excuse to take more. But individuals truly do have that right then they also have the right to give it to anyone they choose to, even if the condition of the giving is the death of the individual.

If the worry is that people are hoarding money and will form an aristocracy, that has already happened more or less. The truly wealthy find ways around the estate tax laws. Further those ways around were designed into the system, and many of those defending the estate tax are the same ones who are bypassing it, so to me it is a dishonest stance.

If the worry is that poor or middle class people are being oppressed due to a lack of money, the government taking it away from rich people isn't truly going to help the people you think it is. The better answer is to reduce the role of government in the economy which will increase the level of opportunity we all have to accumulate wealth. Government acts more as a barrier to wealth than a protector to the poor.

 

[UTChE96]

I hate, hate, hate taxes that are targeted towards a small segment of society usually the upper middle class and higher. It is always so easy to support a tax that you are never affected by. The estate tax raises a fairly insignificant amount of revenue so what exactly is the point? If its such a great idea then extend it to cover most of the tax base not just the "wealthy" as defined by the government. At least then it will actually raise significant revenues. But then the majority of folks who support the estate tax would actually have to put their money where their mouth is.

 

[theiioftx]

Liberals want the money so they can keep and create more government dependence. The idea that somehow the federal government, known for its wasteful spending, has more or equal right to a person's residual wealth than their actual dependents is plain idiocy.

Liberals always fail to understand the ramification of bad tax policy and love to promote bad behavior by their constituents. The idea that savings and wealth accumulation are "bad" explains why liberals pander to deadbeats in society. While at it, explain the negative impact of getting an education, working hard and avoiding drugs. After all, I am sure that contributes to skyrocketing higher education and healthcare costs.

 

[Crockett]

I want intelligent tax policy that encourages work, economic growth and avoids creating hardship on classes where it is hard to bear ... like the policy in Ferguson where costs of government were shifted as much as possible onto the poor for minor transgressions against authority. John Oliver explained it well, though unfortunately his words were too obscene to repeat.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/23/john-oliver-****-barrel_n_6921650.html

 

[Monahorns]

Exactly, the problems in the linked article result from too much government not too little. Government regulation, inefficiency, and corruption also hits the poor much harder than the well off. The answer: less government.

 

[theiioftx]

And has absolutely no relationship to estate taxes. Small town governments across the country are guilty of the barrel. Heck, ever heard of red light cameras?

 

[Crockett]

I guess my point is that I'm a lot more upset about an old woman losing her car and her job over a traffic violation than I am with Paris Hilton and her jet setting little brother inheriting a smaller percentage of daddy's estate. Some folks on this thread seem to think current tax policy is weighted in favor of those that have and get very little. I'm saying "the man" aint exactly looking out for those folks either.

 

[iatrogenic]

I assume that 99.9999% of the citizens don't want a woman to lose her car and job over a traffic violation

Until some people; 1) get beyond blaming, anecdotally or otherwise, other people for their problems (or the problems they see in society), and, 2) stop trying to take instead of earn, those societal problems aren't going to be solved for any material amount of time. Taxing more is just a temporary relocation of funds that will flow back to where you took them in the first place. Better to spend time on educating and teaching a work ethic to those that have and "get" (hopefully you mean "earn") very little.

I wondered about "the man" when I was younger, and I finally found him.

Or, we could go take Paris Hilton's jet away and we will all live happily ever after.

 

[Monahorns]

I am all for laws being restructured to quit punishing the poor for being poor.