Estate Tax Repeal would Hurt Charities

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
iserve said:
😦 The fact that wealthy people can avoid taxes while others suffer under their burden is a grave matter of justice in many places in this country. In my state, the local property taxes are rising so fast that mine have tripled in the last ten years. What used to be a fair evaluation of things has become a heavy burden, and I know that in just a few years, I will have no choice but to sell the home, and go elsewhere, since staying would be pretty much the same thing. Add other taxes into my equation and I think I am at well over the point of paying 50% of my income on various taxes. Many people, except those who qualify for elderly or diabled abatements are bearing the brunt of the “free spending” of those most fortunate,. Sadly, this free-spendingt always seems to include money forced by taxation from others who may not have the money, but by virtue of their minority vote, have no choice. This theory moves all the way up the food chain to most taxes in this country, which are not proportionate at all. The rich pay a much, much smaller proportion of their income on taxes than the poor, and this is cruel and unfair. I think a flat ax on income would be the best thing- no loopholes for anybody, particularly those who are entrusted to make the laws.
PS I have worked for a charity for many years, and you cannot imagine the abuses in the use of donated money and goods. I wouldn’t mind seeing something happen that might force better accountability there, as well.
Click to expand...

Actually I’d much prefer a flat tax on consumption to one on income. A CONSUMPTION tax would have the following advantages: 1) You can control to some extent your tax burden by not purchasing expensive goods 2) It gets people who dodge out of paying taxes on income (cash businesses, artists, etc) 3) gets the illegal aliens. The ‘fair tax’ proposal has some kind of give back for impoverished families so they get a refund of consumption tax paid similar to the earned income credit.

I don’t think punishing the productive is the way to go. Someone like Teresa Heinz Kerry pays almost no tax. She has a lot of municipal bonds so her income is tax free. Apparently she has ‘farm’ subsidies so it limits property taxes on some of the estates.

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
Actually I’d much prefer a flat tax on consumption to one on income. A CONSUMPTION tax would have the following advantages: 1) You can control to some extent your tax burden by not purchasing expensive goods 2) It gets people who dodge out of paying taxes on income (cash businesses, artists, etc) 3) gets the illegal aliens. The ‘fair tax’ proposal has some kind of give back for impoverished families so they get a refund of consumption tax paid similar to the earned income credit.

I don’t think punishing the productive is the way to go. Someone like Teresa Heinz Kerry pays almost no tax. She has a lot of municipal bonds so her income is tax free. Apparently she has ‘farm’ subsidies so it limits property taxes on some of the estates.

Lisa N
Click to expand...
A consumption tax is a good idea, but there are a couple of caveats:

First, will it replace or only supplement the income tax? The XVI
Amendment remains on the books, so we could have both – which would really be crushing taxation.

Second, the “Value Added Tax” or “stealth tax” is a real danger. This is a tax like a bleeding ulcer – it saps the body, and you can’t see it from the outside.
 
vern humphrey:
A consumption tax is a good idea, but there are a couple of caveats:

First, will it replace or only supplement the income tax? The XVI
Amendment remains on the books, so we could have both – which would really be crushing taxation.

Second, the “Value Added Tax” or “stealth tax” is a real danger. This is a tax like a bleeding ulcer – it saps the body, and you can’t see it from the outside.
Click to expand...
Replace completely. We will still have to deal with Social Security although my understanding the ‘fair tax’ proposal takes care of this issue. Imagine the dollars spent every year on accounting, computer forms, attorneys, etc being spent on something more productive (this from a tax accountant mind you).

The VAT is also to be avoided. I am talking about some kind of national consumption tax to be collected at the source.

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
Replace completely. We will still have to deal with Social Security although my understanding the ‘fair tax’ proposal takes care of this issue. Imagine the dollars spent every year on accounting, computer forms, attorneys, etc being spent on something more productive (this from a tax accountant mind you).

The VAT is also to be avoided. I am talking about some kind of national consumption tax to be collected at the source.

Lisa N
Click to expand...
The question is, how do we replace the income tax? As long as the XVI Amendment exists, the tax is constitutional and can be re-instituted at any time.

Second, I think you meant the national consumption tax would be collected at point of retail sale, like state and local sales taxes.

VAT taxes are collected at the source, and at every step in the chain thereafter.
 
There are a couple of points to keep in mind regardless how you see justice or injustice.

People in the upper income brackets pay more, a lot more, tax - that is more total dollars in tax - that people in lower income brackets pay.

Many in lower income brackets pay little or no tax; for some there is even an earned income tax credit. Some who have to pay zip have been cynically referred to as “lucky duckies.”

People can avoid federal tax, and some state taxes by purchasing municipal bonds. But not all such bonds are good, some fail, and the return on them takes into consideration the freedom from tax on earned interest.

The general federal policy of the country is to tax income and not property. I emphasize general. If you have a million in the bank there is no federal tax on the corpus. If you earn a million you have to pay tax on it.

Many of the arguments seem to boil down to how progressive taxes should be. Should a person who owns a 500,000 house pay five times as much as a person who owns a 100,000 house, or more, such as ten times as much? Should a person who earns $500,000 pay ten times more than a person who earns $50,000 or should it be more. Since many taxes, particularly the income and estate and property taxes are already progressive, the issue is whether they are progressive enough.
Finally, the federal and state tax codes are so complex that it is a practical impossibility for many to do their own tax returns and all legislative efforts to “simplify” the law have resulted only in greater complexity.

The answer: get a good accountant and plan your course. There is no justice in taxation now and there never will be. If you believe there is, pray a lot.
 
40.png
OriginalJS:
There are a couple of points to keep in mind regardless how you see justice or injustice.

People in the upper income brackets pay more, a lot more, tax - that is more total dollars in tax - that people in lower income brackets pay. .
Click to expand...
Not too far from where I live is a fellow who barely finished high school. He scrimped and saved and bought a back hoe, and started putting in septic tanks. He now owns a plumbing company. With he made money at that, he bought more equipment – he does site preparation for construction, builds ponds, and so on.

He makes a LOT more than many people who went to college – even people who have graduate degrees.

Now, not one of those more educated people would agree that this plumber is smarter than they are. None of them would admit he is superior in any way.

So why don’t we tax them the same as we tax him, dollar-for-dollar? Maybe it would give them an incentive to get off their posteriors, start a business of their own, and provide jobs for some of the less fortunate citizens.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
40.png
OriginalJS:
The answer: get a good accountant and plan your course. There is no justice in taxation now and there never will be. If you believe there is, pray a lot.
Click to expand...
You’re right – there is no justice in taxation. Which is why taxes should be low. If you are going to do someone an injustice, you should try to make it a SMALL injustice.
 
vern humphrey:
The question is, how do we replace the income tax? As long as the XVI Amendment exists, the tax is constitutional and can be re-instituted at any time.

Second, I think you meant the national consumption tax would be collected at point of retail sale, like state and local sales taxes.

VAT taxes are collected at the source, and at every step in the chain thereafter.
Click to expand...
Well maybe we would need to remove the amendment to make sure they don’t sneak the income tax back in. It wouldn’t be the first amendment struck down.

Yes I meant at the source of the transaction. IOW not filling out a form with all our purchases and then sending it in later as we do with the income tax. Most retail businesses already collect state or local sales tax so it would require very little change for them.

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
Well maybe we would need to remove the amendment to make sure they don’t sneak the income tax back in. It wouldn’t be the first amendment struck down.
Click to expand...
I think we should hold this up as a warning flag – if we intend to change the tax base from income to consumption, it must be done through a Constitutional amendment – lest we end up worse than we started.

But years ago, I proposed a rule – “You cannot talk taxes intelligently without also talking spending.” As long as we spend at the rate we do, it doesn’t really matter how we get the taxes. We must get spending under control.

I propose:
  1. Going from the Service-based budget (with all the built-in waste) to a zero-based budget (where every expenditure is justified on its own merits.)
  2. Cutting those things that are not Constitutionally-warranted. If a needed program is up for a cut – pass a Constitutional amendment to authorize it.
  3. Putting all surplus revenues into the Personal Retirement Accounts of the wage-earners. In the process, we would make every American a deficit-hawk.
 
Steven Merten:
Win the mega lotto and your family tree, only willed to take a ten million plus inflation per generation, while the principal grows through the generations, never have to work again for a thousand years? I don’t think so.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
Click to expand...
People who win lotteries have 27 % taken off their winnings, so they for one can’t escape the tax laws with good lawyers. From what I understand the majority overspend themselves and end up poor again so you don’t have to worry about their children’s inheritance.
 
40.png
deb1:
People who win lotteries have 27 % taken off their winnings, so they for one can’t escape the tax laws with good lawyers. From what I understand the majority overspend themselves and end up poor again so you don’t have to worry about their children’s inheritance.
Click to expand...
Amazing how people accuse conservativres about being “ideologues” and come up with all sorts of twisted argument to maintain their ideology.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

When I think of lottery winners, I think of the Ballad of Blasphemous Bill:

“I took a contract to bury the body of blasphemous Bill MacKie,
Whenever, wherever or whatsoever the manner of death he die –
Whether he die in the light o’ day or under the peak-faced moon;
In cabin or dance-hall, camp or dive, mucklucks or patent shoon;
On velvet tundra or virgin peak, by glacier, drift or draw;
In muskeg hollow or canyon gloom, by avalanche, fang or claw;
By battle, murder or sudden wealth, by pestilence, hooch or lead –
I swore on the Book I would follow and look till I found my tombless dead.”

Even in those days, sudden wealth was not seen as an unmixed blessing.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
40.png
Maranatha:
Charities stand to lose roughly $10 billion a year if the federal estate tax is repealed permanently, according to a study conducted by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute.

contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/11477135.htm
Click to expand...
The whole premise of this argument is so stupid. I defy anyone to show me one person who bequeathed money to a charity rather than his child *only because *it cut down on the estate tax.

Think about it. People leave money to charities because they think it’s a worthy cause. People cut children out of their wills because they think the children are undeserving.

Say a man has a $2 mil estate and there’s a 50% estate tax. Say also that this man has one child and he thinks that child is deserving of $1 mil. He won’t leave anything to charity. If there’s no estate tax he could leave $1 mil to his child and $1 mil to charity.
 
40.png
StJeanneDArc:
The whole premise of this argument is so stupid. I defy anyone to show me one person who bequeathed money to a charity rather than his child *only because *it cut down on the estate tax.

Think about it. People leave money to charities because they think it’s a worthy cause. People cut children out of their wills because they think the children are undeserving.

Say a man has a $2 mil estate and there’s a 50% estate tax. Say also that this man has one child and he thinks that child is deserving of $1 mil. He won’t leave anything to charity. If there’s no estate tax he could leave $1 mil to his child and $1 mil to charity.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s stupid. It’s based on the premise that the money you earn belongs to the state before it belongs to you. In it’s most radical form, it holds that the children you love, and for whose future you worked all your life are less deserving that some lazy layabout who didn’t work and save.

And to defend that underlying premise, no sophistry is too exreme.
 
I am no economic genius, but it seems that State and Fedral taxes at least offer some relief, in the way of earned income, etc. Local property taxes not only offer no relief, but they are subject to forces out of anyone’s control, such as the economy and the salaries and disposable income of others.
I have never, ever seen property depriciate, although no local authority takes into consideration the costs of upkeep, etc. There is no remedy other than leaving, because if you cannot pay, you must move- and this is an outrage. It diplaces the poor and forces them to go from place to place, putting themselves at the mercy of the same forces over and over again. I think these kinds of taxes should be evaluated and remedy provided.
 
40.png
iserve:
I am no economic genius, but it seems that State and Fedral taxes at least offer some relief, in the way of earned income, etc. Local property taxes not only offer no relief, but they are subject to forces out of anyone’s control, such as the economy and the salaries and disposable income of others.
I have never, ever seen property depriciate, although no local authority takes into consideration the costs of upkeep, etc. There is no remedy other than leaving, because if you cannot pay, you must move- and this is an outrage. It diplaces the poor and forces them to go from place to place, putting themselves at the mercy of the same forces over and over again. I think these kinds of taxes should be evaluated and remedy provided.
Click to expand...
Real estate taxes are often a form of outright confiscation – in some areas they are raised to the point where one must sell in order to pay the taxes.

There is now a move afoot in some states to allow the state to use imminent domain (condemnation proceedings) to take property merely on the theory they could get more taxes from it under a new owner.

This is driving out the poor with a vengence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top