Should the estate tax be repealed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maxirad

Guest
Economist Paul Krugman has said in the past that doing so would worsen economic inequality. What do CAF members think?
 
It seems that the rich elite have long since figured out ways to deal with this. Where it seems to hit is families that have built a business or accumulated significant assets over time and cannot shelter them from taxation. It seems grossly unfair to such families that their children cannot fully benefit from the work and sacrifices that their parents made.
 
jc4751 said:
It seems that the rich elite have long since figured out ways to deal with this. Where it seems to hit is families that have built a business or accumulated significant assets over time and cannot shelter them from taxation. It seems grossly unfair to such families that their children cannot fully benefit from the work and sacrifices that their parents made.
Click to expand...
I have read stories about adult children inheriting the family farm and having to sell it just to pay the enormous estate taxes!This is indeed greed and theft on the part of the gov’t:mad:
 
Estate taxes seem like double taxation to me. The government has already gotten their cut the first go round when the now deceased person paid income taxes their whole lives. But noooooooooo, the government is too greedy to be sensible.
 
I don’t think it should be repealed, but revised.
jc4751 said:
It seems that the rich elite have long since figured out ways to deal with this. Where it seems to hit is families that have built a business or accumulated significant assets over time and cannot shelter them from taxation. It seems grossly unfair to such families that their children cannot fully benefit from the work and sacrifices that their parents made.
Click to expand...
JC is right on this one. The super rich have the ability to secure their assets and shield themselves from the worst of the tax hits.
Jeanne_S said:
I have read stories about adult children inheriting the family farm and having to sell it just to pay the enormous estate taxes!This is indeed greed and theft on the part of the gov’t:mad:
Click to expand...
My personal favorite story is the family who found a one-of-a-kind stuffed bald eagle in their relative’s attic. Legally, they couldn’t sell it, but because it was a famous artist and an extremely rare find the IRS charged them MILLIONS in taxes on it. If they sold it to pay the tax, they would go to jail. If they didn’t pay the tax, they would go to jail. WTF? Ultimately they brokered a deal where by donating it to a museum the IRS waived the tax hit, but talk about government insanity.
EmeraldOak said:
Estate taxes seem like double taxation to me. The government has already gotten their cut the first go round when the now deceased person paid income taxes their whole lives. But noooooooooo, the government is too greedy to be sensible.
Click to expand...
The only reason I disagree with this argument is that it assumes the only assets I have at the end of my life are my home and my annual income. The estate tax actually includes much more than that. If my parents save millions of dollars for retirement, and leave whatever they don’t spend to me, the only thing that was taxed was the original money earned. They would not have paid taxes on the interest earned unless it was over a set amount, and even then only under certain conditions.
 
CatholicHockey7 said:
I don’t think it should be repealed, but revised.

JC is right on this one. The super rich have the ability to secure their assets and shield themselves from the worst of the tax hits.
Click to expand...
Everyone has the ability to secure their assets and shield themselves from over taxation. Rich and poor alike.

Most wage earners just don’t think it is worth the extra trouble to “shelter” themselves. And the rich are **forced **to shield themselves from the worst tax hits…or they won’t stay rich very long.
 
What? I’m taxed on my income, and that money is taxed when I spend it. That isn’t double taxation? Then that money is taxed again when it is spent again - triple taxation?
 
EmeraldOak said:
Estate taxes seem like double taxation to me. The government has already gotten their cut the first go round when the now deceased person paid income taxes their whole lives. But noooooooooo, the government is too greedy to be sensible.
Click to expand...
Agreed, we work all our lives to have something to pass on to our children, all the while paying so much in taxes, just to have the govt. snatch it from them when we die. We need to be very careful who we vote for. Know what they stand for!! God Bless, Memaw
 
The idea of being taxed after you’re in the ground is disgusting.

“The Government” will just waste the money anyway (well… most of it).
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Absolutely!!!

The estate tax is nothing more than governmental theft.

Thanks to a change in estate tax law signed by President Obama in 2010 many wealthy people will not be as charitable as they were. A donation to Catholic Charities, for example, will now be taxed.

forbes.com/2010/12/28/estate-tax-charity-gates-buffett-zuckerberg-personal-finance-deborah-jacobs.html

PS: Krugman is an idiot and income equality is a socialist dream.
Click to expand...
You do realize there is a difference between “economic inequality” and income equality don’t you? The OP said economic inequality. Do you seriously think that the nation is better off when we have great economic inequality? Or is it better off when there is less economic inequality? When I make a little less than I could, and my employees make a little more–and have less economic uncertainty–they are better employees–which in the long run is good for the both of us.

Please elaborate on your understanding of this tax law change? The estate tax exemption in 2013 was 5.25 million – meaning I could pass that to my children with no inheritance tax and it is now indexed for inflation. This is up from the $675,000 it was back in 2001. Isn’t that good from your perspective–after all you believe the whole tax should be repealed. Maybe the reason that these wealthy people will not be as charitable is because they can now leave more to their family without paying estate tax–which is what the article you cited says–did you read it? And how does this estate tax law make a donation to Catholic Charities taxable–did they lose their 501(c)(3) status? Did Schedule O vanish from Form 706? Not to my knowledge. I am not sure you understood what the author of the article was saying.

The peace of Christ,
Mark
 
MarkInOregon said:
You do realize there is a difference between “economic inequality” and income equality don’t you? The OP said economic inequality. Do you seriously think that the nation is better off when we have great economic inequality? Or is it better off when there is less economic inequality? When I make a little less than I could, and my employees make a little more–and have less economic uncertainty–they are better employees–which in the long run is good for the both of us.

Please elaborate on your understanding of this tax law change? The estate tax exemption in 2013 was 5.25 million – meaning I could pass that to my children with no inheritance tax and it is now indexed for inflation. This is up from the $675,000 it was back in 2001. Isn’t that good from your perspective–after all you believe the whole tax should be repealed. Maybe the reason that these wealthy people will not be as charitable is because they can now leave more to their family without paying estate tax–which is what the article you cited says–did you read it? And how does this estate tax law make a donation to Catholic Charities taxable–did they lose their 501(c)(3) status? Did Schedule O vanish from Form 706? Not to my knowledge. I am not sure you understood what the author of the article was saying.

The peace of Christ,
Mark
Click to expand...
For a married couple, it’s 10.5 million if they do it right.

I don’t oppose the estate tax in principle, but I am troubled by some of the ways the super-wealthy can evade it.
 
Ridgerunner said:
For a married couple, it’s 10.5 million if they do it right.

I don’t oppose the estate tax in principle, but I am troubled by some of the ways the super-wealthy can evade it.
Click to expand...
From your first sentence it seems you already realize that the estate tax only applies to the super-wealthy anyway. I would be troubled if those inheriting $50,000 had to pay estate tax while richer people avoided it. But that is currently not the case.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
From your first sentence it seems you already realize that the estate tax only applies to the super-wealthy anyway. I would be troubled if those inheriting $50,000 had to pay estate tax while richer people avoided it. But that is currently not the case.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I would consider 10.5 million an estate of the “super wealthy”. A farmer in good corn country with less than 2000 acres, major machinery and a cattle herd could be worth that. Now and then he would make out like a bandit, but sometimes he would lose heavily. A man operating a trucking company with 50 Peterbilts, a location, and servicing equipment would be worth that. A sole owner of a country bank with $100 million in assets would be worth 10.5 million or so in net worth. 10.5 million is what Reagan (in referring to himself) would have called “little rich”.

But I agree an estate tax on $50,000 would be an outrage.
 
Maxirad said:
Economist Paul Krugman has said in the past that doing so would worsen economic inequality. What do CAF members think?
Click to expand...
This is what Pope Francis tweeted a couple of days back: ‘Inequality Is The Root Of Social Evil’
 
For the record, Chuck Norris has advocated doing away with the Internal Revenue Service.
 
The tax system does not match the economy because when the irs was reorganized to go off of income tax, America was self sufficient. Currently, we have a huge deficit and are importing our goods and services. Paralle this to an inverted population pyramid, and income taxation will leave empty promises & large paybacks to the future generations.

Since we are climaxing with the inverted pyramid on population, there are more people who will retire and die over those with sustainable income. Keeping the current tax collection model, this will be necessary in the next decade. However, cannot be a life saving force for the governments expenditures because this season will be short.

The real issue is intergrating with the world market in significant ways. Currently, the USA has high enviromental restrictions. Corporations have outsourced this to China to avoid these laws. A equalizer would be to impose high taxation/tariffs on products made in countries with lower EPA standards (labor, benefit, min wage, ect). Further, infasteucture in water ways needs to be secure at the cost of multiple regions to allow free commerse. Is it fair that only a few countries stive for this alone?
 
Maxirad said:
Economist Paul Krugman has said in the past that doing so would worsen economic inequality. What do CAF members think?
Click to expand...
Paul Krugman is a committed left-wing newsman and has stark bias.

And who says economic inequality that isn’t capricious is a bad thing? That’s the real issue here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top