Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Inherited wealth shouldn't get a free pass on taxes (According to the LA Times )
Los Angeles Times ^ | 07/06/2010 | Ray Madoff

Posted on 07/06/2010 8:12:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Repeal of the estate tax imposes significant costs on the taxpaying public and promotes concentrations of wealth that harm our democracy.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: deathtax; estatetax; inheritance; taxes

1 posted on 07/06/2010 8:12:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

REASONS GIVEN BY RAY MADOFF ( THE AUTHOR OF THIS PIECE, wonder if he’s related to Bernie ), AS TO WHY THE DEATH TAX SHOULD NOT BE REPEALED :

* The most common reason given is that this money has already been subject to tax when it was earned by the decedent and to do so again would constitute “double taxation.”

But there is no general principle that says income or property gets taxed only once. To the contrary, property is often subject to multiple taxation when it is used for different purposes.

In any given day, we are all subject to a variety of state and federal taxes. For instance, your earnings are subject to both income and payroll taxes, and that money is taxed again when you pay sales tax on your purchases and property taxes on your home.

* It is not dollars that are subject to tax — it is taxpayers. When a person earns $50,000 and then pays his mechanic $2,000 to fix his car, the mechanic cannot avoid taxes by claiming that the money was already subject to tax when earned by his customer.

* Congress is giving up a valuable source of revenue. During the last 10 years, the estate tax has raised about $25 billion each year. Moreover, it has been estimated that if inherited income were subject to income taxes, this would have raised roughly $90 billion in 2009 alone.

Money raised from taxing inheritances could be put to good use: alleviating the tax burden for the less well off, funding programs that benefit the country as a whole or reducing the debt that we are passing on to our children.

* Failing to tax large inheritances promotes concentrations of wealth that harm our democracy.

The United States is a very affluent country, but the wealth is distributed in a highly unequal manner. A few Americans own an enormous amount, and a large number of Americans own hardly anything at all.

* Disparity in wealth is far greater than disparities in income. Whereas the top 1% of earners earn 20% of all income, the wealthiest 1% of Americans own more than 33% of the country’s wealth. In contrast, 80% of households combined own less than 16% of the nation’s wealth. Inheritance plays an important role in creating this wealth gap, and failing to tax inherited wealth exacerbates the problem.

* Studies consistently show that high concentrations of wealth correlate with poor economic performance of the country as a whole. Although no single cause has been determined, economists suggest that the reason is insufficient investment in education and other resources that benefit the country as a whole.

* Governmental policies in a democracy are supposed to be policies of the people being governed. But the wealthiest Americans — the group that tends to be able to either run for office successfully or fund the campaigns of others — have very different concerns than the general population.

Wealthy Americans have privatized education for their children, privatized security for their homes and privatized medical care through no-insurance concierge doctors. They are less likely to have the same level of interest in devoting taxpayer resources to good-quality public education, effective police and fire protection, and affordable medical care — let alone rights for workers and the unemployed

* The estate tax, combined with such programs as the GI Bill, federal mortgage assistance programs and loans to small businesses, promoted a strong middle class and reduced the wealth owned by the top 1% from its high of 56% in 1912 to less than 20% by 1976.

HAVE A GO AT IT MY FRIENDS. THE ABOVE ARE YOUR STANDARD LIBERAL ARGUMENTS...


2 posted on 07/06/2010 8:16:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Repeal of the estate tax Over-zealous spending by governments imposes significant costs on the taxpaying public ...

Sorry, but the L.A. Times needed a little correction there.
3 posted on 07/06/2010 8:16:39 AM PDT by 84rules ( Ooh-Rah! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
There should NOT ever have been a DEATH TAX.

How many times must one be TAXED when they are ALIVE!

When they die, the money should be distributed to those indicated in the will and those receiving is as “income” should NOT be taxed on it.

4 posted on 07/06/2010 8:16:56 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Welcome back from the copyright penalty box. Reposting my comment from the previous thread that I salvaged from the wreckage.

His heirs have hit the tax-free jackpot.

Yeah, your house wasn't looted while you were at the funeral! It's a jackpot.

One thing I would like to know: How much of the Kennedy family fortune has been turned over to the tax man for death taxes since Joe Kennedy died? His generation, just about all (and maybe all with Ted's death, I didn't check for sure) of the next generation and some from the following generation should have paid. How much was actually paid and how much was hidden in impenetrable trusts which the elected members of the family make sure the IRS doesn't look at too closely? Libs, don't come crying to me that there should be an estate tax unless you can look me in the eye and say that 3/4 (50% with Joe's generation and 50% of the remainder with John, Robert and Ted's generation) of the Kennedy family fortune has been paid in estate taxes.

(Side note: a few years ago a very, very liberal family member was trying to get everyone in the family to put our money in some family trust because she said that the rich like the Kennedies use them to keep from paying estate taxes. I asked her if anyone in the family had a direct line to the IRS and then did a pretty good imitation of Ted Kennedy saying "If any IRS agent audits me, he'll be doing his next audit in Fahgo!")

5 posted on 07/06/2010 8:17:20 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Gun control was originally to protect Klansmen from their victims. The basic reason hasn't changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

A bit of the same old same old BS Marxist line. The money earned has already been subjected to federal and state income tax, capital gains tax, and a whole raft of other taxes. If Mr. Smith or Mrs. Jones wants to leave it to his/her kids, that’s up to them - but additional taxes?

How much is enough?

To the socialists who run most things these days, we should all pay taxes on the air we breathe, and would certainly be doing so if only the Marxists could figure out how to bill everyone.

Maybe the thing to do is get politicans to limit their extravagance in greasing their constituents’ palms.

No, that would set a limit on corruption, and we can’t have that!


6 posted on 07/06/2010 8:20:03 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
LOL!

Do you really believe that RAY MADOFF is not going to make sure he slips his life long earnings TAXFREE to those he leaves behind and cares about?

Yes, those are they typical greed oriented liberal excuses for greed. When it comes to the money of a LIBERAL though, the rules are the OPPOSITE. For some odd reason, as seen on Obama’s cabinet, they don't see the need to PAY THEIR TAXES and yet there is little outcry form their liberal base - WHY IS THAT?

7 posted on 07/06/2010 8:20:32 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Spending needs to be reduced and the “progressive” income tax needs to be replaced with a tax on wealth. That will allow upward movement by increasing income (which is currently punished), as well as remove the need for the estate tax.


8 posted on 07/06/2010 8:21:29 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’ve made a serious decision regarding my “estate”.I’m gonna spend it...give it away (”legally” or “illegally”)...burn it...rather than see any government hack get his/her/its grubby fingers on a nickel of it.If I get any advance warning of my passing I’ll do one or more of those things.


9 posted on 07/06/2010 8:21:41 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (''I don't regret setting bombs,I feel we didn't do enough.'' ->Bill Ayers,Hussein's mentor,9/11/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
Spending needs to be reduced and the “progressive” income tax needs to be replaced with a tax on wealth. That will allow upward movement by increasing income (which is currently punished), as well as remove the need for the estate tax.

You know..I don't usually do this to a Freeper but here goes...your post sounds so much like those in this country who haven't acheived anything or saved anything that I wonder what you're doing here on a forum where most of the members have.

10 posted on 07/06/2010 8:25:35 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (''I don't regret setting bombs,I feel we didn't do enough.'' ->Bill Ayers,Hussein's mentor,9/11/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Inherited wealth” has already been taxed multiple times already! idiots stuck on stupid LA Times....=.=


11 posted on 07/06/2010 8:33:10 AM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Good grief! This guy's article reads like a Communist Manifesto...everyone should have the same wealth and income. Really? If that's the case, then why has every communal experiment in the world, from New Harmony, IN and Owenism to Communist Russia, failed?
12 posted on 07/06/2010 8:34:32 AM PDT by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

“Good grief! This guy’s article reads like a Communist Manifesto...everyone should have the same wealth and income. Really? If that’s the case, then why has every communal experiment in the world, from New Harmony, IN and Owenism to Communist Russia, failed? “

They all failed because Eeeeevvvvvvvvvvviiiillllll Capitalism still existed...

/sarc


13 posted on 07/06/2010 8:42:16 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It is not dollars that are subject to tax — it is taxpayers.

It is not the taxpayer, as in a pure headcount numbers game, that is being taxed. It is the fruit of one's labor that is being taxed.

What makes the "poor" in our country not taxed? What is it about the poor that we do not call them "taxpayers," or are they "taxpayers" who are exempt from paying taxes? It is because they are not producing anything with their labors, and it is their labors that are being taxed.

By purchasing an item and paying a tax, it is not the consumer who is really being taxed, it is the laborer who produced the goods. The tax is just being added to the purchase of the good so that it looks like it is the consumer's wealth that is being taxed.

-PJ

14 posted on 07/06/2010 8:44:38 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Federal, State, County, Municipal taxes, levies, fees, regulation.....

Naw, really, tax us some more...pretty please, tax us some more.

Damn, almost half our income goes to pay some sort of governmental beast.

Uncle Sugah, get out of our lives, will ya.

15 posted on 07/06/2010 8:46:09 AM PDT by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cranked

RE: “Inherited wealth” has already been taxed multiple times already! idiots stuck on stupid LA Times....=.=


Well, this author has little sympathy for arguments like the above. His response is the standard — “it’s better for the government to have your money”.

Here’s his argument :

“There is no general principle that says income or property gets taxed only once. To the contrary, property is often subject to multiple taxation when it is used for different purposes.

In any given day, we are all subject to a variety of state and federal taxes. For instance, your earnings are subject to both income and payroll taxes, and that money is taxed again when you pay sales tax on your purchases and property taxes on your home.”


In other words, to the author, tax payers haven’t been taken from enough in this life. Their heirs need to be taken from even more just as they have been taken from when they were alive.


16 posted on 07/06/2010 8:46:43 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Already Taxed as Income.

Taxed again as Capital Gains.

Tax it again upon Death!


17 posted on 07/06/2010 8:48:30 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (0bama calls us "Tea Baggers", so we can call Kagan a "Carpet Muncher," right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

As I said, the author is an idiot stuck on stupid.


18 posted on 07/06/2010 8:53:52 AM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

end taxation without respiration, the person that bequeathed the money already paid taxes on it, when they earned when they saved it when they invested and when they spent it, for the love of god do they have to tax it again when you die?


19 posted on 07/06/2010 8:55:04 AM PDT by edzo4 (You call us the 'Party Of No', I call us the resistance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
A few thinking points:

1) very few people pay estate/inheritance taxes. There are too many work arounds.

2) This is a hot button issue that evokes a lot of emotion but few know what they are talking about.

3) Getting rid of the estate tax in reality is revenue enhancement for the govt but no one will ever admit it. With an estate tax, assets get a stepped up. Valued at 1 million in estate and you sell it for 1 million, assuming you are an heir, there is no tax. No estate tax and you will be taxed on the gain in value from when your parents bought it.

4) I think one of the original arguments for an estate tax was to avoid the concentration of wealth and power. Our founders say the danger of concentrated wealth in history. I am in favor of this as a conservative, but in reality the estate tax does not solve this concern.

20 posted on 07/06/2010 8:59:01 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
I think one of the original arguments for an estate tax was to avoid the concentration of wealth and power

How much must you have in your estate to qualify as someone the government considers --- a CONCENTRATOR OF WEALTH AND POWER ?

Uncle Sam considers $3.5 Million today as the qualifier. THAT IS AN OLIGOPOLY ?
21 posted on 07/06/2010 9:06:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Let everyone espousing higher taxes and income redistribution, whether they be newsman, pundit or politician, have all their income in excess of $30k per household member be confiscated and half turned over to the Salvation Army, Food Bank, etc., the other half go to paying down the national debt.

Also, all of their vehicles in excess of one per full time working adult shall be confiscated.

While we are at it, all Save the Earth/Carbon Footprint types shall have their electricity cut off, motorized vehicles confiscated, heating/cooling of offices & homes turned off, etc.

Walk the talk! Put your money where your mouths & printing presses have been.

Finally, all the overpopulation complainers, next Tuesday we will stop the world so you can get off. (Actually, I don’t mean that. Some airhead eco-freaks will probably re-start the Buddhist monks solution to the Vietnam war.)


22 posted on 07/06/2010 9:21:24 AM PDT by BwanaNdege ( "Hapana Obama")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“You say you want a revolution... well you know”.

LLS


23 posted on 07/06/2010 9:31:26 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer ( WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
How much must you have in your estate to qualify as someone the government considers -— a CONCENTRATOR OF WEALTH AND POWER ?

One of the tenants of conservatism is we DO NOT LIVE IN A PERFECT World. We are not idealists. I stated what I thought the concern was in the original law.

I as a conservative am concerned about the concentration of wealth and power, because I know and understand the nature of man. I ALSO stated that the estate tax did not solve this. Please read and think before posting.

You evidently think concentration of wealth and power is ok. Unrestrained capitalism is no better than unrestrained government. Our founders set up a complex system of checks and balances for a reason.

Even God was concerned enough about this to set up the year of jubilee which interestingly enough was never implemented.

24 posted on 07/06/2010 9:45:16 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
You evidently think concentration of wealth and power is ok.

Nope, didn't say that. I did ask though how much one must possess/invest/save to be considered a concentrator of wealth and power.

Today, I believe the answer is $3.5 Million. Well, the next question is obviously this -- where did we come up with this amount ?

We also have to remember, $3.5 Million might be a heck of a lot of money in say, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. But it is a pittance in a city like NYC or San Francisco.

So back to the question --- what value do we choose to qualify as too much concentration of wealth and power and why ?

Based on what criteria ?
25 posted on 07/06/2010 9:52:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The United States is a very affluent country, but the wealth is distributed in a highly unequal manner. A few Americans own generate an enormous amount, and a large number of Americans own generate hardly anything at all.
26 posted on 07/06/2010 9:59:01 AM PDT by Onelifetogive (I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Your questions are not good ones.

See my original post.

1) Very few pay.

2) it is an manipulated emotional issue and very few understand it.

3) GETTING RID OF THE ESTATE TAX WILL ACTUALLY INCREASE TAX REVENUE!

4) The estate tax does not accomplish what I think is the original concern.

A tax is a tax whether it is collected as an estate tax, capital gains, or income tax.

My personal preference is to get rid of the estate tax. If the heirs don't want to pay the income tax, they simply don't have to sell the inheritance. We eliminate one dept in IRS and put some lawyers out of work. Will it solve all problems? NO. we will still have concentration of wealth and power, that is why the right to bear arms is so important.

We counter the consolidation of wealth and power through freedom. We were all equal under the law and had equal opportunity. That was the great thing about America, we were not stuck in a “class” and could move up and down the ladder.

27 posted on 07/06/2010 10:22:42 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
* For instance, your earnings are subject to both income and payroll taxes, and that money is taxed again when you pay sales tax on your purchases and property taxes on your home.

my choice to buy....

* It is not dollars that are subject to tax — it is taxpayers. When a person earns $50,000 and then pays his mechanic $2,000 to fix his car, the mechanic cannot avoid taxes by claiming that the money was already subject to tax when earned by his customer.

again...my choice to hire

not my choice to die.
28 posted on 07/06/2010 10:45:20 AM PDT by stylin19a (Never buy a putter until you first get a chance to throw it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
not my choice to die.

Unless of course, you commit suicide... :)
29 posted on 07/06/2010 11:21:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

People who write newspaper articles saying taxes are good should have their incomes double taxed.


30 posted on 07/06/2010 11:38:14 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Covetousness.

Liberals are envious, greedy whiners.


31 posted on 07/06/2010 11:44:37 AM PDT by TruthConquers (Delendae sunt publicae scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

I hope this gnat brain inherits a profitable small business and gets hit with the tax. It’ll wipe him out.

The Joe Robbe family got hammered after Joe died. He was the owner of the Miami Dolphins. His kids inherited the business, but the inheritance tax was so great, they had to sell off the business to raise the cash for the tax.
The inheritance tax was put in place to “soak the rich”, but it catches small business’s and family farms.
It is a very destructive and punative tax that punishes sucess.


32 posted on 07/06/2010 11:57:49 AM PDT by Texas resident (Outlaw fisherman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Texas resident

It’s the same reason the Wrigley family sold the Chicago Cubs to the Tribune Company several years back.


33 posted on 07/06/2010 12:15:30 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The government shouldn’t be benefiting by the death of a citizen...They didn’t make the money and it was taxed to death during the life of the citizen...


34 posted on 07/06/2010 2:51:33 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

‘few years ago a very, very liberal family member was trying to get everyone in the family to put our money in some family trust’.

It’s not a bad idea. That’s what my family has done. My grandpa and grandma did the same, and their kids have done the same as well. They all have shares in the family business.


35 posted on 07/06/2010 4:23:28 PM PDT by BenKenobi (I want to hear more about Sam! Samwise the stouthearted!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

How concentrated must wealth be to be “too” concentrated? Only your commissar knows for sure.


36 posted on 07/06/2010 4:29:33 PM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
You know..I don't usually do this to a Freeper but here goes...your post sounds so much like those in this country who haven't acheived anything or saved anything that I wonder what you're doing here on a forum where most of the members have.

Glad you expressed it. We get nowhere if we don't discuss what we're preaching, or just preach to the choir.

Please examine your statement and see that it doesn't make sense.

Inheritance is something that provides benefit to someone who hasn't achieved anything to get it. Also, if one is going to achieve and advance in the economy, then a progressive income tax inhibits that. Someone who isn't into achievement would want the status quo, where income is taxed progressively. Poor stay poor; rich stay rich...anyone trying to get ahead gets whomped.

Yes, there would be less incentive to spend, and my suggestion would boom the economy too fast and too falsely (people spending instead of saving), and it makes sense to have some income-based tax.

Those with greater assets gain more benefit from the protections of our common defense, etc. Imagine you're sharing a residence who has a collection of Fabergé eggs--so he wants to buy a very pricey security system. If you have relatively little to lose, why should those costs be split evenly with you?

37 posted on 07/06/2010 4:41:48 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson