@Pres Eden
"That's not why they're doing it, and I should hope this would be apparent. If they perceive the need (read: they want), they'll raise taxes on the other three regardless of whether or not they raise the death tax. "

Don't be daft. Parties want to get elected so they promise to cut taxes, if they want to get re-elected they keep the promises.

"Don't be daft. Parties want to get elected so they promise to cut taxes, if they want to get re-elected they keep the promises."

...Pardon? I'm not following... wouldn't the death tax be, well, a raise in taxes, not a cut?

@PE I read your post as saying that governments raise taxes without reason. My counter is that they also have a reason to cut them.

Ah, gotcha. It's not without reason, necessarily -- the money has places it can go. They have reasons for doing it. But, as far as I've observed in the American system, neither of the two main party blocs significantly cut taxes... they'll throw out a tax cut here or there, but by and large both sides outspend whatever they do cut. The norm is spending into oblivion on various agenda-driven projects... taxes will be raised to meet the demand regardless of whether or not we have a death tax.

Perhaps my observation is flawed, but as far as I can see, death tax/no death tax won't affect the fact that the federal government will at some point increase taxes on all the categories you named.

My objection isn't to that. (Well, I do object to it... I don't like tax hikes. But if it's inevitable, that's moot.) My objection is to how they raise the money. I'll end up regurgitating what's already been more eloquently stated by prior posters at this point, but the moral aspect of double-dipping into anyone's money just because they died is rather dubious. Granted that states aren't exactly moral... but that doesn't change my view of it.

"double-dipping into anyone's money just because they died is rather dubious"

...being that they died and therefore no longer have any rights or interests would seem relevant. The inheritance tax is essentially a gift tax. ...and yes, gifts (above 10,000 per year, I believe) are taxed... similar to how income is taxed. Question is, what is the best use of the money that they leave behind... best use for us who remain (since the deceased can no longer use it). One extreme would say give it to their heirs, the other extreme would say give it to society at large for the common good. Both have their arguments. ...and what we have now is a compromise.

A couple odd points to answer from earlier in the thread:

"how about the "rich person's" spouse?" the spouse is exempt. ...that would mean zero estate tax when an estate passes to a spouse. (and that's the way it should be) Also worth noting that charitable organizations are also exempt. Leave it to a foundation if you don't trust the government to use it wisely.

...regarding various quotes of 85% to 55%... 55% is the ceiling *for the portion of the estate greater than $3 million*... the rate for the portion greater than $1 million is 41%, greater than $1.25 million is 43%, etc. A slight difference.

"1 million isn't much" - speak for yourself, buddy. According to statistics reported by the census bureau, high school graduates can expect, on average, to earn $1.2 million in their entire lifetime; those with a bachelor's degree, $2.1 million; and people with a master's degree, $2.5 million. A million is a heck of a lot. And anyone who says it isn't much is clearly speaking from a position of privilege.
---
And I must say I totally agree with Thucy's point about the children earning it for themselves. Let the money build a school or a road or something... and since we all recognize how people should only profit from their own efforts and not from the efforts of others, let the heirs only inherit personal effects. I don't even necessarily want something that extreme... but it would seem consistent with that American work ethic and the ideal of the "self-made man" the right loves so much.

"...being that they died and therefore no longer have any rights or interests would seem relevant."

If that's the case, why the hell do we bother with wills? And regardless of that, do you not have an issue with plundering the possessions of the dead, even for societal benefit?

who owns the former possessions of the dead? If the person is dead, who is being plundered? I'm not against wills. So long as we recognize the other family members and other loved ones as having some claim then a will is completely reasonable. ...but why should an inheritance be treated any different than a large gift (which is also taxed)? So long as there are taxes, I don't see what makes an estate tax special as something to be protected. Indeed, since it does not affect the original earner of the money in question, it should be far less objectionable than income tax.

i reiterate that a million dollars is not much. my parents are solidly middle class maybe even upper middle class and if they made like 20000 more dollars a year they would be hit so hard in taxes it would make you cry. Making a million a year is alot. HAVING a Million is not as much as you think and does not stretch as far as people imagine. a good house costs about 500k in a good district.

@ Jack Klein

"Well, the fun part is, this entire arguement is based on bad data."

Where did you get your data Jack? I think that you are looking at the 2009 numbers that were part of the Economic Relief and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001. That law sunsets this year which is why we have no estate tax this year and goes back to the 2001 tax credit with an exemption of $1 million and a top margin of 55% justl ike I stated.

Centurion - you are using facts and logic to argue against people that have an emotional belief against people possessing personal wealth. As I pointed out, a family farm can be "worth" well over a million easy when the land, structures and equipment are taken into account...but the farmer will live an incredibly modest life...maybe even one of hardship. When the death occurs, the taxes on all this vast "wealth" will then cause the farm to be sold off to pay taxes...eliminating the family business (which to these buffoons shouldn't be allowed to continue the family farm anyway). The result is that the corporations these people hate MORE get to buy the old family farm for cheap. Same things happens with all sorts of small business...Detroit area is full of small tech start-ups for the auto industry...and when the family has to sell off the company, the big corporations swoop in to buy the pieces...the big corporations these Pro-tax people hate much more than small business wealth. but the fact that these people ignore this reality and would rather see the small, successful businesses die to the benefit of the corporations just demonstrates their complete lack of logic. Zero consistency in their arguments, because they won't follow the logical and reasonable results of their tax-the-small-business mentality. All they are capable of seeing is that somebody made more money than them...is therefore "wealthy"...and deserves to lose that wealth. it's all about class warfare and the punishment of success. Because not *everyone* can make as much as someone else, nobody deserves to make anything. It's actually insane. If they could, they would destroy corporations....but since they can't do that, they will punish the small businesses that can't protect themselves like a publicly held multi-national. Moronic....

@dexter morgan

"So long as there are taxes, I don't see what makes an estate tax special as something to be protected. Indeed, since it does not affect the original earner of the money in question, it should be far less objectionable than income tax."

In many cases it's douple dipping on the part of the government. An income tax is levied once and what's left over is yours. The money that we're talking about has already been subject to income, capital gains and on the local level properyt taxes. There are literally cases in which people have had to sell family businesses and farms to cover the tax.

Most people can't afford a 500k house. The mortgage on that would be about $2,500/month... which comes out to 30k/year. The average household income in the US is about 45k, gross. So, one could expect that they would have to pay near 100% of their net income to pay for a house like that. Experts usually say that one should not spend more than 1/4 of their income on housing... so, to properly afford a 500k house, you are talking about more like $180k/year in income... which puts you solidly in the top 5% of Americans. As to having a million dollars in assets (as a household)... well, that puts you in the top 7% of Americans, more or less.

oh and jack klein, with the part about buying gas, you forgot about the certified gallons by the department of weights and measures etc.

It's not so much the income as what you do with it though. As far as the study goes auctioneers are represented pretty well in millionaire category while doctors are uder represented. The doctor typically make more but bleed lots more on lifestyle. An auctioneer in a suburban or rural area doesn't have to "keep up with the Joneses" and is therefore has more to invest over a long term. They also start into business earlier and have those extra years for long term investments to accrue wealth. The point being that income isn't the be all and end all.

@CA, sure. And I've had to sell things to make the bills too. Sometimes tough things happen. The economic climate for several decades has been in favor of large corporations and against small businesses and individuals. I'm not happy about it either. I'd happily trade the estate tax for a higher effective corporate tax (eliminate loopholes). Also might help if some tax breaks were specifically written for small farmers (I imagine there are some already - but I don't know). I think there is significant food security value from having our food supply in the hands of hundreds of thousands of families rather than Monsanto, etc.

I reiterate that it's double dipping as well. Why single these folks out for taxation on property that has already been taxed (or will be the instant that it's liquidated)? Is envy of their supposedly "spoiled rich kids" enough to justify that? Aside from the obvious stereotype that makes that sound better, I can't really see the point there. It doesn't make unfair taxation any more fair for it to happen to someone that you personally dislike. (More to Thucy on that one).

That probably sounded like I was tossing it back at dexter. I wasn't really just pointing out the problem as it hadn't been addressed.

**I was really just...**

Yeah anyway taxation is not robbery. It is not. It absolutely is not.

The reason why is because you can vote against a tax. You can't vote against getting robbed.

Also, as I said, the person is DEAD! I don't care what happens to my shit after I die. I'm dead. I don't really think I'll have that much shit when I die anyway, since I'll give most of it away beforehand most likely.

Talking about "robbing a dead man's grave" is a trashy argument, appealing to superstition essentially.

Do you mean to tell me that if you are, say, in a chain gang and some dude freezes to death you wouldn't take his shoes because it was "his property?"

No! No one cares about a dead man's "property" because he's dead! You do with it what's in the will. You don't set it aside in case the dude might come back asking for it.

Now I understand your point. The poor kids and wife etc won't get shit. Their restaurant will have to close. If this does indeed happen the law should be modified to exempt such people.

But as a law the estate tax is a good idea, is not robbery, etc.

I'm sure there are a bunch of you on here who think it is fair if everyone gets taxed like 10% of their incomes no matter what their income is, and that's it.

That's ridiculous. You know that.

All this "don't tax me!! don't tax me!!" tripe is unsettling at best. Like Klein said, that sort of line is about as mature as a communist idealist. Like I said in my other thread.

Anyway. Whatever. Maybe the govt should set up an opt out program of taxes. No taxes, no services. You can go to some corner of Arizona and live tax free huzzah.

neone want to play a live game?

"sure. And I've had to sell things to make the bills too. Sometimes tough things happen."

Does it need to be government mandated tough things aimed at a specific group that frequently has the effect of putting people out of work?

"The economic climate for several decades has been in favor of large corporations and against small businesses and individuals. I'm not happy about it either."

Voting can change that.

And I don't mean to sound populist Crazy. I was just saying that just because it is double dipping doesn't really mean anything. The rate of taxing based on income is uneven anyway, and rightly so. If you are willing to disagree with that notion, then you can disagree with the idea of "double dipping" with an estate tax. If not, you have no right to.

As far as the income disparity goes, do none of you see a problem with that? This has been called the second gilded age. Does that not bother you?

"Anyway. Whatever. Maybe the govt should set up an opt out program of taxes. No taxes, no services. You can go to some corner of Arizona and live tax free huzzah."

If that happened you'd most likely have 3.5% of the population take their $11 trillion dollars to Arizona (they don't need most of those services) and leave the rest of us 96.5% with the other $11 trillion to cover an awful lot of stuff. Instant tax hikes for the rest of us.

"As far as the income disparity goes, do none of you see a problem with that? This has been called the second gilded age. Does that not bother you? "

That's what I was trying to get across to you. If you are in your twenties you could easily put $100 a month in a mutual fund and have $5 million by the time that you are 70. That's based on the market for the past seventy years. It's not income so much as what you do with it. There are millionaires that don't make as much as me and I'm a public school teacher.

Its true many people retire with a nest egg of a million dollars because they are thrifty.

And thucy I believe in a flat tax so ill feel free to argue about this

so does ne want to play?

I do start a game as I rquested in ad thread. And give it a catchy title to draw people in

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=34431
Estate tax debate live game starts in 20 minutes