1. Post #41
    Flyingman356's Avatar
    June 2008
    5,287 Posts
    The "double dipping" thing doesn't really make much sense. I can see the logic in it; it's not like you don't have to pay taxes on your paycheck because your boss already paid taxes for it.

  2. Post #42
    Dennab
    May 2012
    338 Posts
    im going to spend my entire fortune on the most expensive single cigar i can buy, then im going to smoke it on my deathbed so my money doesnt go to burnt out morons who are on foodstamps because they never went to college and arent in college because they'll lose their foodstamps

  3. Post #43
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    The "double dipping" thing doesn't really make much sense. I can see the logic in it; it's not like you don't have to pay taxes on your paycheck because your boss already paid taxes for it.
    I think most people who are against the death tax are also against other forms of double taxation, e.g. separate payroll and income taxes.

  4. Post #44
    Gold Member
    Black Milano's Avatar
    November 2005
    2,445 Posts

    Milton Friedman explains it pretty well. Try the 1:50 mark.

    In essence, taxing your wealth while you're dead incentives you to dissipate it while you're alive, instead of forming long term capital that can be worked and improved upon in further generations.

  5. Post #45
    Gold Member
    PvtCupcakes's Avatar
    May 2008
    10,900 Posts
    It's an estate tax, and anyone who says death tax is fucked in the head.
    Of course there should be an estate tax. An estate is a transaction, and like any other form of income it's taxable. If you're a greedy fuck like most people in this thread that gets bent out of shape over a number next to a dollar sign, then get a fucking grip. If your family has enough money to be affected by the tax (i.e. $1 million or more), then what the fuck is the difference between $10 million and $5 million? That's still a shit load more than my parents would ever be able to leave me.

    You're not moving down the economic hierarchy because the tax applies the same way to everyone. You aren't going to go from a millionaire family to living on food stamps because the government taxed some of your estate.

    And it should be mentioned that like tax brackets, the tax would only apply on money over $1 million. If you have $5 million, $4 million is taxable and the remaining $1 million is tax free. Boo fucking hoo, sad day for you.

    Edited:

    I personally, agree with Romney believe that the tax should be eliminated. I think the tax is wrong and unfair because it is effectively taxing a persons earnings twice. All their money has already been taxed when they earned it, and should not be taxed again at death.
    See, this is where all of you are wrong. It's not being taxed twice. When you die and give your money to somebody else it's being taxed as income for the recipient. The dead person isn't being taxed.

  6. Post #46
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    It's an estate tax, and anyone who says death tax is fucked in the head.
    Of course there should be an estate tax. An estate is a transaction, and like any other form of income it's taxable. If you're a greedy fuck like most people in this thread that gets bent out of shape over a number next to a dollar sign, then get a fucking grip. If your family has enough money to be affected by the tax (i.e. $1 million or more), then what the fuck is the difference between $10 million and $5 million? That's still a shit load more than my parents would ever be able to leave me.

    You're not moving down the economic hierarchy because the tax applies the same way to everyone. You aren't going to go from a millionaire family to living on food stamps because the government taxed some of your estate.

    And it should be mentioned that like tax brackets, the tax would only apply on money over $1 million. If you have $5 million, $4 million is taxable and the remaining $1 million is tax free. Boo fucking hoo, sad day for you.

    Edited:



    See, this is where all of you are wrong. It's not being taxed twice. When you die and give your money to somebody else it's being taxed as income for the recipient. The dead person isn't being taxed.
    but why should you be taxed for receiving a gift of money from a dead family member or friend? gifts of money are considered non-taxable income when the giver is alive, why does it change when the giver dies?

  7. Post #47
    Gold Member
    PvtCupcakes's Avatar
    May 2008
    10,900 Posts

  8. Post #48
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    those are taxes for GIVING gifts, not receiving gifts. According to the IRS (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...8139,00.html#1) the donor pays, not the recipient. And since the estate tax is a tax on the recipient not the donor (just like you said), it contradicts the IRS's current stance on gifts.

  9. Post #49
    Gold Member
    Black Milano's Avatar
    November 2005
    2,445 Posts
    It doesn't matter who physically pays the tax, the question is who bears it's burden. In case of inheritance tax, it's the dying person the one who pays the government to leave money to their children, regardless if it's them that actually send it the check.

    The incentive is clear, the more your inheritance is taxed, the more you'll want to dissipate it while you're alive instead of forming long term capital.

  10. Post #50
    I pushed my dad off the stairs and all I got was he came back
    Aerkhan's Avatar
    October 2009
    4,767 Posts
    Inheritance tax is, to me, bullshit. The guy who died worked for it and wants his heir to have it, so the state should not get a single dime, unless they haven't made a will, then it's all for the state.

       YOU LIVE, YOU GET TAXED
    YOU DIE, YOU GET TAXED
    THE TAX IS UNESCAPABLE. 
      

  11. Post #51
    I'M A SHAAARK!
    Lambeth's Avatar
    October 2009
    14,844 Posts
    I think it should be kept.

  12. Post #52
    electric926's Avatar
    January 2009
    1,079 Posts
    but why should you be taxed for receiving a gift of money from a dead family member or friend? gifts of money are considered non-taxable income when the giver is alive, why does it change when the giver dies?
    Because the gifter can't fight the tax when they die.

    In essence, taxing your wealth while you're dead incentives you to dissipate it while you're alive, instead of forming long term capital that can be worked and improved upon in further generations.
    That's just nonsensical. What if you die suddenly before you "dissipate" your funds? "Sorry, we're going to take the money you wanted to give to your kids. We need the money to build a bridge in Alaska that no one needs."

  13. Post #53
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    Because the gifter can't fight the tax when they die.
    what? when the gifter is alive they pay the tax, how is that "fighting"?

    Edited:

    Because the gifter can't fight the tax when they die.



    That's just nonsensical. What if you die suddenly before you "dissipate" your funds? "Sorry, we're going to take the money you wanted to give to your kids. We need the money to build a bridge in Alaska that no one needs."
    huh? he's arguing for why we should REMOVE the "death tax", not arguing for it.

  14. Post #54
    electric926's Avatar
    January 2009
    1,079 Posts
    what? when the gifter is alive they pay the tax, how is that "fighting"?
    Eh, I think I misunderstood your question. Sorry.

    huh? he's arguing for why we should REMOVE the "death tax", not arguing for it.
    I do agree with him, I was just making a cynical statement in support of it. Sorry for the poorly worded response.

  15. Post #55
    Gold Member
    PvtCupcakes's Avatar
    May 2008
    10,900 Posts
    The incentive is clear, the more your inheritance is taxed, the more you'll want to dissipate it while you're alive instead of forming long term capital.
    In the Milton Friedman video, he was only responding to a 100% tax, which nobody (afaik) in this thread is arguing for.
    If it's say like 25-50% then that same incentive to blow your money isn't there.

  16. Post #56
    Gold Member
    Black Milano's Avatar
    November 2005
    2,445 Posts
    In the Milton Friedman video, he was only responding to a 100% tax, which nobody (afaik) in this thread is arguing for.
    If it's say like 25-50% then that same incentive to blow your money isn't there.
    Except it is. Think about it, giving inheritance buys you a "good": your son's well being if you want.

    Spending your money giving inheritance gets more expensive as you tax it, so you substitute "giving inheritance" with goods you can buy while you're still alive. For instance, if taxes are 30%, for every dollar you give in inheritance the government takes 0.3 cents, so your sons only receive 0.7 dollars. If on the other hand you spend that dollar while you're alive, you get to use all of it. Death tax can be seen then as the cost of not spending your money while your alive.

    And since inheritance tax is progressive (the more you inherit, the more tax you pay), buying more of that "good" gets progressively more expensive as opportunity cost, which is spending your money while you're alive, rises with it.

  17. Post #57
    Gold Member
    Funsize's Avatar
    January 2008
    2,322 Posts
    Is this still taken from money donated to charities? That just seems wrong.

  18. Post #58
    Gold Member
    Zally13's Avatar
    July 2008
    4,976 Posts
    Is this still taken from money donated to charities? That just seems wrong.
    I don't understand the question. Non-profit organizations are exempt from taxes iirc.