Rich Kids can spare some of their inheritance

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

You think those 100 people would need to keep working? Give me $5 million and I’ll be sitting on the beach driving beer for the rest of my life.

and that's kind of why $5MM is the number I use. If I really want or need to provide my kids with a life of perpetual leisure, $5MM is more than enough. There are some situations that I can imagine that I might really need to set my kids up for life (disease, disabilities, etc). But even assuming a paltry ROI, a $5MM nest egg would enable someone to live out their days in substantially more comfort than virtually every other American and they wouldn't even have to touch the principal. They could pass it down if they so chose.

 

[Monahorns]

Your not really getting the nuance of what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting the government get the money, I'm suggesting that the tax would encourage the donor/gifter to spread the money around precisely to avoid the government taking the money. I'm saying, if the gifter chooses to gift it all ($500MM in my example) to one person, then 'yes' it will incur a big rate(40-50%)....however if the gifter chooses to spread it around and give $5MM to 100 different people, then the tax rate should be very low(5%). But in order to accomplish this end result, the tax would need to be targeted at the recipients, not the donor/gifter.

It's irrelevant to my argument. My argument is that the government doesn't have the right to tell me or anyone else what to do with my inheritance.

You essentially support the government saying, "if you don't disburse your money the way we want, we will take X% of your money away." Once you start that, the X can be anything to get whatever outcome they want. Same logic.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

It's irrelevant to my argument. My argument is that the government doesn't have the right to tell me or anyone else what to do with my inheritance.

You essentially support the government saying, "if you don't disburse your money the way we want, we will take X% of your money away." Once you start that, the X can be anything to get whatever outcome they want. Same logic.

Almost the entirety of the tax code is precisely what you are saying. The government sets most of the tax code to encourage/discourage certain behaviors. So the extension of your argument is that there should be zero nuances to the tax code and we should all just pay our bracketed base rate. no mtg dedections, no child credits, no write offs for business this or that's.

I don't agree that there should be no rewards/punishments in the tax code. I think it is a more useful tool than most, to encourage specific behaviors. At the end of the day, you still have a choice to abide by the policy or not, you just pay a higher fee for doing your own thing. That's much better than a law that would criminalize specific behaviors.

 

[ShAArk92]

I don't agree that there should be no rewards/punishments in the tax code. I think it is a more useful tool than most, to encourage specific behaviors. At the end of the day, you still have a choice to abide by the policy or not, you just pay a higher fee for doing your own thing. That's much better than a law that would criminalize specific behaviors.

I can't be reading this correctly.

If BOS is advocating the use of the tax code to motivate behaviors ... here's yer sign.

I recognize there are plenty of taxes whose implementation results in differing behaviors ... but in the land of the free, non criminal activity (real non criminal, not just what any given person doesn't "like") shouldn't be part of the tax.

How do we tax someone into being motivated to be Constitutional in their approach to the Federal Government?

quite the oxy moron, isn't it!?

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

I can't be reading this correctly.

If BOS is advocating the use of the tax code to motivate behaviors ... here's yer sign.

I recognize there are plenty of taxes whose implementation results in differing behaviors ... but in the land of the free, non criminal activity (real non criminal, not just what any given person doesn't "like") shouldn't be part of the tax.

How do we tax someone into being motivated to be Constitutional in their approach to the Federal Government?

quite the oxy moron, isn't it!?

Virtually every tax code we have in the book is there to reward/punish specific economic or social behaviors. Marriage, children, housing, education, investment, business....all of them come with specific tax advantages/disadvantages. I don't see how you can argue otherwise. Do you think the tax laws were put into effect arbitrarily? If you do...here's YOUR sign.

 

[ShAArk92]

Do you think the tax laws were put into effect arbitrarily?

no, that's not what I think ... What I know is taxes are written to increase the role of government. period.

the electorate continues to allow ... even BEG for this ... as your reference post demonstrates. Typical democrat, never saw a tax he didn't like, unless it was TOO SMALL ... and almost all of 'em are too small to democrats.

Knock it off. We didn't win WWII because we had government in charge of everything ... we won it because of freedom. Entitlement has so permeated our culture, the warriors which would wage this war and need the financial support of a strong economy ... are dying off/retiring/etc. Handing off the baton to the next generation who was raised on the internet and the expectation the government has a responsibility to provide for them (incl their sex change operations)

We're ripe for being overtaken by the ultimate evil central government. ... and it's gonna happen. Soon.

But it'd be nice to know there aren't Texans (legacy of independence and freedom) aren't BEGGING for government to save 'em.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

just did a look up...only about 700K households even have more than $5MM in net worth. That's about 1 of 150 households and very likely, it is very concentrated in SF, NY, LA type locals. The article also said that most of the generational wealth(3MM and above) dissipates by the third generation, however I would doubt that is the case for the folks in the above $5MM group.

Wealth that is unearned and yet allows someone to live a life of luxury and have outsized influence on most aspects of American life is not a societal plus IMO. Income inequality is a good thing to the degree that it motivates people to get up and accomplish more. Wealth inequality because your great granddaddy owned the right asset a hundred years ago....not so much.

 

[iatrogenic]

Your advocacy of any taxation is advocacy of less freedom and a weaker, more inefficient economy. You can't answer the most basic questions concerning what rich people do with their money, but you are certain that it must be "bad". I am not even sure if you understand the charitable gift limitations in the tax code.

You don't want someone to be given an inheritance, but you want an vastly inefficient government to forcibly take other people's money and give it to someone else all with little or no thought about why they are in the position they are in, or how they should pay back the welfare. Maybe you should look around at the financial state of the current government programs to get an idea of how taxes are wasted.

You are correct that taxes affect behaviors. The federal income tax negatively affects productivity as Trump has once again illustrated with his tax cuts and the booming economy.

You and SH can advocate sucking the government's titty all you want despite the obvious pitfalls of such socialist activities. Unfortunately, too many American voters have the same uneducated view of economics and history.

 

[ShAArk92]

Wealth that is unearned

taxes weren't paid on that wealth?

See .. .this is the problem with big govt types ... who see all wealth as the government's first, because of the government's responsibility (Fed govt that is) ... to retain/defend the currency ...

but there's a difference in currency of money and wealth from one's labor (whether that labor is decision making or physical exertion)

Wealth inequality is covetousness. Even the most atheistic knows what that means.

Let's have a free society with a free market ... and let the market decide; that means it's producers and consumers. NOT the government.

 

[Seattle Husker]

We didn't win WWII because we had government in charge of everything ... we won it because of freedom.

You wanna see the tax rates at the time you beckon? I believe the upper rate was 90%. Of course, the income disparity was much lower then than now.

 

[ShAArk92]

I believe the upper rate was 90%

ah ... the simple analysis ...


BEFORE the income tax was only for the top 2% ... industry was built. There wasn't the over regulation to stymie production which has driven much of our manufacturing overseas (until recently) ...

so the BASIS of the ability is in the MUCH smaller Fed.

yes, there were some strapping times back then after the excessive-involved government created the Great Depression, and then rolled right into the need to make bombs/bullets/equipment/uniforms like we never had before ...

but the ability was there. And so were the warriors in sufficient numbers.

IDK if we have those warriors in the 20 somethings any more. In sufficient numbers. I've worked with many and they're great Americans. But there are far too many entitled slugs in this referenced generation and we don't have the production capability we had in the late 30s/early 40s.

because of excessive government. period.

 

[iatrogenic]

You wanna see the tax rates at the time you beckon? I believe the upper rate was 90%. Of course, the income disparity was much lower then than now.

More ignorance.

Tax rates never won a war. If you want to educate yourself look at tax receipts as a percentage of GDP regardless of the level of taxation.

Income disparity is not a problem government can solve although ignorant Libs continually advocate policies aimed at outcome instead of opportunity. It doesn't work. In fact, such policies make matters worse, but a person would actually have to understand facts to recognize the problem with socialist policies. Endlessly wallowing in your ignorance is not helpful.

 

[Seattle Husker]

ah ... the simple analysis ...


BEFORE the income tax was only for the top 2% ... industry was built. There wasn't the over regulation to stymie production which has driven much of our manufacturing overseas (until recently) ...

so the BASIS of the ability is in the MUCH smaller Fed.

yes, there were some strapping times back then after the excessive-involved government created the Great Depression, and then rolled right into the need to make bombs/bullets/equipment/uniforms like we never had before ...

but the ability was there. And so were the warriors in sufficient numbers.

IDK if we have those warriors in the 20 somethings any more. In sufficient numbers. I've worked with many and they're great Americans. But there are far too many entitled slugs in this referenced generation and we don't have the production capability we had in the late 30s/early 40s.

because of excessive government. period.

While reading your passage this came to mind.



I've long ago realized that our economy and culture is resilient. The baby boomers are the greatest threat to the young people right now as they bleed the economy via entitlement programs and curse us with the current POTUS. Another 15-20 years that won't be a problem.

 

[iatrogenic]

I guess the argument using facts has been abandoned.

 

[ShAArk92]

While reading your passage this came to mind.

LOL

I'm not qualified to carry Clint's spare mags.

The baby boomers are the greatest threat to the young people right now as they bleed the economy via entitlement programs and curse us with the current POTUS. Another 15-20 years that won't be a problem.

Lotta interesting aspects to this ... the boomers are the greatest threat? They received a world where by the US was the greatest superpower, with Russia/USSR a very close second. They learned about nuke bomb drills as kids.

But you're right, it's their generation which produced some of the most incorrigible big government officials we've ever had in our history (even moreso than Coolidge and his 16/17 Amendment plus Reserve Act)

The national debt which started in earnest under LBJ and continued through to current with the greatest increases under big govt types (Carter/Clinton/Obama) ... no, the economy will not survive that. Particularly because the birth rates behind the millennials won't have a prayer to produce enough upon which to have confiscated by the Fed to keep the appearance/facade of being able to service the debt.

I call it intergenerational economic SLAVERY. The boomers started it and Gen X has put it in overdrive.

Because ... like this thread's OP ... never saw a tax which was inappropriate.

 

[mchammer]

The 90% tax rate included a ton of loopholes that reduced the effective tax rate. This is a lie of omission that liberals and SH have perfected.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

Your advocacy of any taxation is advocacy of less freedom and a weaker, more inefficient economy. You can't answer the most basic questions concerning what rich people do with their money, but you are certain that it must be "bad". I am not even sure if you understand the charitable gift limitations in the tax code.

You don't want someone to be given an inheritance, but you want an vastly inefficient government to forcibly take other people's money and give it to someone else all with little or no thought about why they are in the position they are in, or how they should pay back the welfare. Maybe you should look around at the financial state of the current government programs to get an idea of how taxes are wasted.

You are correct that taxes affect behaviors. The federal income tax negatively affects productivity as Trump has once again illustrated with his tax cuts and the booming economy.

You and SH can advocate sucking the government's titty all you want despite the obvious pitfalls of such socialist activities. Unfortunately, too many American voters have the same uneducated view of economics and history.

Again...didn't say I want the gov't to have the money. didn't say I want the gov't to redistribute the money. I said...the person with the money will be ENCOURAGED, not forced, to distribute the money more broadly in order to lessen their tax liability. The person with the money gets to decide, BEFORE the gov't takes it....who they want to give it to. In my mind, this doesn't even generate revenue for the gov't. this just makes it so we don't have an aristocracy based on generational transfer of unearned wealth.

If this rule were enacted and I died with 25MM...I would give my 3 kids 5MM each and then take the other 10MM and give a little to aunts, uncles, cousins, or charities. I would decide who it went to and since none of the recipients got more than $5MM, none of them would be taxed a heavy rate.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

Some of you guys get very reflexive when the word "tax" hits the page. But I'd be willing to bet none of you live in a hole dug in the ground with your own two hands. I'd be willing to bet none of walk to church, walk to school, walk to the store, etc. I'd be willing to bet that none of you scribble your notes on a piece of paper and hand it to your neighbor to hand to his neighbor to hand to your mom next week.

I'd be willing to bet that you all live in a nice house, in a nice neighborhood, in a nice city, with nice roads, and a nice police dept and a nice fire dept, and telephones that work and water that runs and electricity that turns on. While capitalism and profit drives a lot of this, the government plays a big role in setting the base for a relatively level playing field. People don't invest if they don't trust. People don't build a business that no one can drive to. People don't build a business if a bigger shark can come in and mob them out of business. Government plays a role in all of those protections and safeguards. So until you are truly carving your living out of the earth with your own two hands...spare me the "all government/tax is bad" crud.

 

[iatrogenic]

You still can’t answer the basic question of how rich people invest and why what they do is “bad”. You also ignore the good that the investments do for the economy.

Your idea is still forcing people to do something against their will because you “think” what they currently do is not good, but you can’t explain why. You’re taking freedoms away.

let the folks that earned the money and paid the taxes do what they want to with their assets. That’s called freedom. Your idea that government knows better is wrong, and that has been repeatedly proven throughout history.

 

[mchammer]

Some of you guys get very reflexive when the word "tax" hits the page. But I'd be willing to bet none of you live in a hole dug in the ground with your own two hands. I'd be willing to bet none of walk to church, walk to school, walk to the store, etc. I'd be willing to bet that none of you scribble your notes on a piece of paper and hand it to your neighbor to hand to his neighbor to hand to your mom next week.

I'd be willing to bet that you all live in a nice house, in a nice neighborhood, in a nice city, with nice roads, and a nice police dept and a nice fire dept, and telephones that work and water that runs and electricity that turns on. While capitalism and profit drives a lot of this, the government plays a big role in setting the base for a relatively level playing field. People don't invest if they don't trust. People don't build a business that no one can drive to. People don't build a business if a bigger shark can come in and mob them out of business. Government plays a role in all of those protections and safeguards. So until you are truly carving your living out of the earth with your own two hands...spare me the "all government/tax is bad" crud.

You make good points but you ignore that private roads and private military have been deployed in the past. Gov funding is not essential. And most roads today are built by development companies who are reimbursed by taxing entities. The latter doesn’t have to happen.

 

[theiioftx]

I’ll bet I paid more in taxes than I got back in government services by a large margin.

I’ll also bet I paid my mortgage and all my expenses on my own. I’ll bet I gave away more than 10% of my earnings to worthwhile causes. I’ll bet I paid 100% of my child’s college tuition. I’ll bet I volunteered to help homeless people in my city.

Accordingly, I bet there is no reason what I saved for my family deserves to be taken by a politician to distribute to people I do not know.

 

[nashhorn]

Uh, how can the donor be taxed? He/she is dead.

 

[iatrogenic]

Uh, how can the donor be taxed? He/she is dead.

Who said the "donor" was taxed?

 

[nashhorn]

I know what he meant. He explains it. He means taxes imposed that force the ‘donor’ to distribute the inheritance before passing but in one discussion he says tax the donor not the inheritor. I thought I’d jive him a bit.
To me he’s just saying make a will BUT he’s allowing the government to dictate how the will is written because we know anyone will do everything possible to avoid taxes. It’s just wrong. If I want to leave say one sibling 10 mil and another 1 mil, or even zero it’s none of the Govt business and they should have no influence. But I hate taxes anyway.

 

[ShAArk92]

.I would give

Bully for you. That'd be YOUR decision to do with YOUR money as YOU saw fit. Govt has no place in that.

But I'd be willing to bet none of you

Big talk hotdog ... I've dug plenty of holes on this place. Set many fence posts ... hung and rehung a few gates.

This is more of that presumptive "I know better than you" nonsense. Even if you were right, so what? Why do you think the government should have any say over the earnings you made (legally)? Of the people by the people FOR the people ... that doesn't mean tax/spend ... that means free from government to the max extent possible (not just practical) ... but we can't even converse on that because you believe the government has a right to claim that it's the government's wealth and that any get to "keep" any of theirs is by the benevolence of the government.

That is precisely the OPPOSITE of what The Founders created.

 

[BevoJoe]

But if you get lucky in the lottery of life and land an inheritance, you owe no federal tax.

That is because the decedent's estate was subjected to an estate tax as part of the probate process. If the amount of the estate is in excess of the federal exemption amount, the excess is subjected to the tax rate. States generally apply an estate tax and, the last time I reviewed state laws on the subject, only Maryland applies both an estate and and an inheritance tax. Depending on a given state's probate laws, and whether the state is a community or separate property state, the tax is levied on the amount of the decedent's share in excess of the exemption. For Federal purposes, an individual is allowed an exemption amount of $11.4 Million and a husband and wife jointly have an exemption of $22.4 million they can pass without tax to their heirs. Plus the first spouse to die may pass any unused exemption amount to their spouse only, not other heirs. This was part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act effective for 2018 that President Trump praised as one of the items the American people were going to love. If you believe this is an inequitable law or position, write to your representatives in Congress and urge them to amend or change the law. Texas has neither an estate tax nor an inheritance tax, and, as I am sure you are aware, no income tax. So, write to your state reps and senator and persuade them to enact a state estate tax, an inheritance tax, or both. Good Luck!

 

[Seattle Husker]

My son's Godmother is Columbian. (Shark- she's the wife of the Spec Forces buddy.) She said the biggest difference between the US and Columbia is that we take safety, organized traffic, and reliable utilities for granted. The first time she ventured to the US she was in awe at the neatly regulated traffic flow and being able to walk down the street at night without immense fear of being mugged or worse. Some of us need to spen a little more time where Governments aren't very effective to get a better appreciation for what you now take for granted. I experienced this first hand in Bangalore, India recently.

 

[ShAArk92]

She said the biggest difference between the US and Columbia

being able to walk down the street at night without immense fear of being mugged or worse.

albeit far too much infringed, I do recognize we still have a MUCH greater ability to defend ourselves individually than folks do most anywhere else ... especially a cartel-run state like Colombia (Mexico). You won't acknowledge this difference, but it's literally fundamental to the ability to exercise freedom, not just talk about it.

I don't believe we should have NO government. I endorse the Original Constitution plus the 13th and 22nd (we have some looney amendments in there) ... you could press me into conceding the 19th. (to feed the narrative of the knuckledraggqin country hick with white privilege he won't even acknowledge) ... it's become painfully clear we need the 28th amendment on the order of Ted Cruz' proposal; term limits for Congress, which must include revocation of any taxpayer funded compensation once out of office and the 29th amendment which revokes the 17th. (campaign finance reform right there)

What I'm saying is the Fed is supposed to be quite limited in scope ... but effective. We've allowed (demanded) the Fed to be everywhere ... and because of its nature (regardless of intent) is quite ineffective and also results in curtailed freedom.

What the left has presented as a 4 letter word is actually one of the few points, on the fed level, they've had right; tariffs. Properly applied is the original source of Fed funding and for a free people with a free economy would demand foreign participation, hence revenue for the properly sized Fed. But here we are ... like the Israelites 3100 years ago ... demanded a king and received one. we have a 546-crowned king who is all in our chili. 9 of those have grown in importance because the 535th are paralyzed by the pursuit of retaining their crown .... because the respective electorates are more concerned about getting "free" stuff, like city sidewalks, from the big king than they are electing a federal representative in our Republic; getting common defense and promotion of general welfare. (the latter of which doesn't mean now what it meant when it was written)

I won't say I've been EVERYWHERE ... but I've been to a lot of places in my employment; first through uncle sam's "big stick" and most recently in my hauling peeps to and fro great distances with great speed. Regulation most benefits folks who choose to live stacked 95 high in cities. For us who can actually operate a motor vehicle on our property, let alone those who choose to have such where it can do a complete 360 without reversing in multiple locations on said property ... less government is more effective government.

The "sons of Cain" are winning that struggle as power is consolidated into smaller sections of land (see the whining about the electoral college) ... but I know the end of the story. Like watching The Horns on replay when I know they've won, I do not get anxious when there's a tense moment in the game ... I'm simply curious "how do we get out of this one??" I know what happens in the end, and all of our failed governances, as a result of being imperfect people, are eliminated and then there will be peace such that a lion will lay in a pasture with a lamb.

 

[Monahorns]

I don't agree that there should be no rewards/punishments in the tax code. I think it is a more useful tool than most, to encourage specific behaviors. At the end of the day, you still have a choice to abide by the policy or not, you just pay a higher fee for doing your own thing. That's much better than a law that would criminalize specific behaviors.

You get my point. I don't think the government should be involved in social engineering. They don't have the wisdom, intelligence, or morals to tell me or the average citizen what to do. They need to butt out.

I do agree that taxing behavior is better than criminalizing, but taxation itself is based on coercion.

 

[Monahorns]

Wealth that is unearned and yet allows someone to live a life of luxury and have outsized influence on most aspects of American life is not a societal plus IMO. Income inequality is a good thing to the degree that it motivates people to get up and accomplish more. Wealth inequality because your great granddaddy owned the right asset a hundred years ago....not so much.

You keep making these pronouncements like you are the authority about what other people should and shouldn't do with their money or what is the acceptable way for a person to get money (beyond ethics or morality). You sound like a socialist dictator. Kind of like China's social scoring where a person's ability to buy and sell will be linked to "how socially beneficial their behavior is".