Posted on 04/22/2009 9:52:26 PM PDT by rvoitier
The good news is that Congress realizes that the American people are not going to stand for a permanent 45% Death Tax.
The bad news is . . .
I fail to see how the taxing of yearly income at rates of up to 35% (and that only after $250,000) is worse than taxing your lifetime accumulation of assets (INCLUDING the death benefit of life insurance policies, if you own or control the policies) at 45%. Maybe you see something I don’t, but at an Estate Planning attorney with a CPA and a dozen years of preparing taxes, that’s how I see it.
That, of course, doesn’t give me the warm and fuzzies regarding income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. I just view them as less destructive.
Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention that your lifetime accumulation of wealth may very well include inheritances from your parents and other relatives whose estates were already subject to tax - so that money will have been taxed 3 times (income tax to your folks, estate tax on them, estate tax on you). Robin Hood, IOW.
You bought that propaganda, eh? Pretty sad.
“I suspect that if you or your immediate family ever accumulate even near the assets that’d render you vulnerable to the death tax you’d see things a bit differently.”
Neither Warren Buffett and Bill Gates is opposed to the estate tax. Andrew Carnegie was strongly in favor of it. Sam Walton was simply too smart for the government, and maneuvered around it. It seems to be the lower-tier wealthy, with their $5-25 million accumulations, who complain the most. Anyway, it seems that I’m already paying over 1/3 of my income in taxes every year. That bothers me more than the possibility of doing it again once when I die. You have neither my sympathy nor my vote on this issue.
There is no law preventing someone from writing a check to the US Treasury in order to give it more money than you legally owe it. As for the rest of us who would like to pass on to our loved ones the hard-earned fruit of our lifetime's labor, the Estate Tax is an abomination. Again, I say that as someone who earns a living helping people legally avoid it (hey, I know that I've got job security, regardless of my personal preferences).
That's because they have enough money/assets to protect their estates from the tax man by dolling it out to their family through their foundations. Obviously if their families were personally affected by the tax in any way they'd crusade like mad against it.
It seems to be the lower-tier wealthy, with their $5-25 million accumulations, who complain the most.
That's because they're the ones you actually have to pay the tax. Again, if you or your family ever get even close to the $5-$25 million range you'd see things a bit differently.
As far as your take on income taxes goes, you're preaching to the choir.
“You bought that propaganda, eh? Pretty sad.”
“The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion.... Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death, the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire’s unworthy life.
. . . This policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of wealth during his life, which is the end that society should always have in view, as being that by far most fruitful for the people”
Andrew Camegie, “Wealth,” North American Review, 148, no. 391 (June 1889): 653, 65762.
Just another communist? lol
Use your money to benefit your community, church, and other causes near and dear to your heart. Then you can die and leave zilch to Uncle Sam.
One change I would like to see would put a time limit on all tax-exempt foundations established by bequest. They shouldn’t be allowed to be perpetual in my opinion.
Again, the ultra-rich are completely protected from the death tax (through their foundations and the like), so their personal crusades in favor of the tax ring completely hollow. Neither you or Bill Gates have to worry about the gov’t coming after YOUR money. ...albeit for (far) different reasons.
The church of the state is now open, Bishop Andrew Carnegie presiding.
Your propaganda purchase will be taxed heavily, naturally...
The debate:
Ayn Rand versus Andrew Carnegie
Now that would be worth attending!
Forget about Michael Crichton versus Al Gore. That would have to be ended by some sort of mercy rule.
Aw, knock that crap off and come up with a real argument.
It has nothing to do with “what you need” after you are dead. What kind of boneheaded statement is that? Obviously, no one, even an “anti-death tax zealot” like me, is going to need property when they are dead.
It's a matter of private property. Do you have children or heirs? Don't they deserve the benefits of what you have worked for, whether that is 10k or 10 million dollars?
Your property does not belong to the government. How did you get this idea?
“It’s also obvious that if you lower one of these taxes to zero, the remainder will rise!”
That is not obvious. Lots of states have raised sales taxes and it has actually resulted in less revenue because people have stopped buying goods or else they have purchased goods in another state.
You need to worry a little bit less about us zealots and a little more about the fiscally irresponsible morons that are running this country.
If I managed my own house the way our government runs the country I would either be broke or in jail ~ and I would deserve it!
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.