If we were engaged in some sort of existential struggle for our existance, or the government couldnt secure our safety/security without confiscating all inherited wealth....


YOU DAMN SURE ID BE FOR TAKING IT ALL AS WOULD THE MAJORITY OF CLEAR THINKING INDIVIDUALS.

I mean its always a balance...

Come on PVN you're better than this example. The government taxes numerous people to benefit numerous people. When you rob an old lady you are taking from a single person and benefiting a single person. The government takes portions of most people's money to benefit most people. We can argue about if they take too much, or if they don't benefit enough people, but this example doesn't hold water.

Not only this-which should be obvious to any thiking person- but it may indirectly benefit the rich who are taxed.

Political stability is the #1 determinant of wealth of a nation...or perhaps a close second to resources in extreme cases.....why people would rather spend 40K a yr on housing poor young people in prisons than spend that money on educating them, or on early head start type programs is beyond me. It is simply an overly myopic view of resource/money management that in the case of healthcare has finally come to a head.

Uh, no, that doesn't follow at all. I don't have a right to buy a hamburger from mcdonalds. Should I be forbidden from doing so???

This is wrong. States do not claim to own all of the land that they exert their monopolies over. Well, some states do but most don't.

And again, I see inheritance as a transaction for services, you just want to say that you didn't think it was worth it, but those two parties disagree, and it's just, like, your opinion, man.

I don't think the guy mowing my neighbor's yard "deserves" $50 for that amount of work, but what do I know?

PS: deserves got nothin to do with it anyway.

I don't even have to do that. My hypothesis IS correct because, as I've already mentioned, it's a subjective opinion.

Everyone already instinctively realizes that it's "better for society" if everyone just drinks what they want rather than putting milk, coffee and tea up on a ballot.

THat doesn't tell me what's "good for the community," that just tells me the preference of some particular people.

So LeBron's income is more "taxable" than other people's? Or Stephen Hawking's?

How much "more" of a right do "workers" have to this money? If the heirs have NO right, then I can just help myself, right?

The status quo is justified by virtue of being the status quo?

Right, now you're just hiding from the normative question and pulling out the Phone Booth "it's the status quo, I don't have to justify anything" card.

Wrong, I have kids, so I'm taking from a single person to benefit multiple people. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Yeah, it's a balance. "how much can we steal before people figure out what's going on here?"

Grunch:
Govt obtains the right to tax inheritances the same place they get the right to tax incomes, from the govt.

If it's acceptable for the Govt to take money from income gained via labor then why not income gained via inheritance?

ACers would probably respond that it is not acceptable for Govt to tax anything and we get into the played out ACland argument which I have no interest in.

/thread, basically.

misgrunch imo, the hijack was started by a pro-taxer.

They all claim sovereignty, which reserves them some powers. No states claim that all property owners have allodial title, as far as I'm aware.

It's not my opinion, I don't care about desert. It's my impression of what the main pro-estate tax argument is. If you don't care about desert, you won't be convinced by it. That's fine.

Everyone also instinctively realises the differences between apples and oranges. Food is an entirely private good, with the benefits of consumption impossible to redistribute.

Of course, the idea of democracy is not that it perfectly divines what's good for the community, it merely approximates it.

A bunch of handwaving ITP. Allodial title, private goods, etc.

The curx is the last paragraph. All the rest of this post is really irrelevant. If you think democracy is a good method of approximating "good" stuff that's fabulous. Why should I care? Once we figure that out the rest of it solves itself.

You seem to be under the impression that "grunch" means "very accurate recap"?

Nope.

Idea for a new movie: CPA who begins to dabble in contract killings so his clients can inherit money before the estate tax is reinstated.

Working title: "The Executor"

BTW, those who are like "I don't want to talk about whether taxes are legit or not, I hate AC hijacks" should all be kicking the OP, because given that, this entire thread is pretty dumb. Taxes are legit, stfu, what's there to talk about?

gee i wonder

Still doesn't hold water.

Government is taking from all to benefit all. (Don't get caught up in the all part like they don't tax homeless people for income). Its the simple idea that everyone pays a bit and in return you get interstates, schools, police, etc. These things (in theory) increase the standard of living for the vast majority of people.

You don't think that people who agree that taxes are generally legitimate can disagree about what sort of taxes should be employed?
You think that once we agree to tax at all it doesn't matter who or what we tax?

Do you think it would productive for someone to come into every poker strategy thread and post "All gambling is evil. It doesn't matter how you play the hand...both ways are evil. What's there to talk about?"

SUre, but that's different than the people asking for justifications for the death tax.

No, it's not a matter of whether it matters or not, it's just that anything and everything is fair game. You've made the bed. If you don't like it, elect someone blahblahblah...

Yeah, but in the context of something like this specifically:

There's obviously no answer. Taxation is just, therefore, by definition, there can be no viable argument against it. It's just a matter of preferences at this point. I like tacos, booooooooooo-ring

I would like to add my two cents as to why this tax is an especially despicable tax as compared to things like sin taxes or even sales taxes. Personally I think that any time an organization takes your earned capital without consent is theft without question. That's not the argument I am gonna make though. I am gonna try and make an anecdotal argument as to why I specifically see this tax as especially horrible.

The current death tax specifics are not well know to me at the moment. It's really not something I have to worry about in the immediate future since no one in my family is near kicking the bucket and actually has any wealth to pass on as far as I know. What does worry me is the future when my parents actually pass away.

You see when my mom and step dad got married they began work on a new home. They(a nurse and computer programmer) acted as contractors for this building project and oversaw the building from day one. Anything they could do themselves(which was quite a bit) they did themselves. They risked their marriage and the families' well being to build this home. We put everything on the line together to make it all work. I don't think that because my name is not on the deed that I don't have some claim to the wealth created by my parents. I was there right along with them deep in the risk just trying to build something better for ourselves. Right now it's an elegant representation of all that can come from two people giving it all to try and build a better future.

My problem arises when I think of the uncertainty of the future of that home. More than anyone else in my family I want to assure that the home stays within our family after they pass. My name may not be on the house or any of the other wealth they've accumulated but their risk was my own none the less. We all can not predict the future and whether or not what they are passing on will pass some barrier that people decide is ok to start taking from. I also can not predict whether or not I will be able to handle that situation when it arises.

I certainly understand that the passing of money is easy to handle since the government only has to come in and take their slice and move one. The government does like to do it simple, but the passing of a home from one person to the next would, I imagine, be as simple a procedure.

The onus does not lie upon the dead to handle this, the tax process falls upon the bereaved. In a cruel twist of fate I know that I will have to handle this ordeal when it comes upon us. If they charge me with "earning" the value of that home will I have to pay taxes on that? If so, or if they devise another scheme, I will be extremely worse for ware. I will have to handle the death of a family member and a battle with the US government to try and remain afloat while just trying to keep significant family heirlooms.

I understand that the government has to gather capital in the form taxes, but I just think they should have the tact to allow those who recently lost love ones a pass on things because you're not taxing the dead you're taxing the living at the cruelest possible time.

At the 2009 levels (which will probably be reinstated), a couple could combine their exclusions to exempt $7 million from the estate tax. Beyond that, a good estate planning attorney can come up with other schemes to shield even more money. Then, money beyond all that is taxed at 45%.

The only way I could think of you having to sell the house would be if the house was the only asset in the estate (ie. your parents had no bank accounts, stocks, retirement money, cars, life insurance payouts, etc.), and that the house was worth over $7 million, such that there's a tax, and no one has any money to pay it without selling the house. (Although even then, there are probably ways to keep the house, simply by taking out a home equity loan or something to get some cash out of the house to pay the tax, for example)


Edit: Oh and as to your argument about making bereaved people deal with stuff...dealing with the estate tax part of handling an estate is one of the more easy and straightforward parts. It's far more burdensome to marshal all the assets of the deceased (find all the accounts they had, etc.), make proper accountings, and distribute fairly according to the will without pissing off any of the heirs...and none of that has anything to do with the government.

I don't think it's boring to talk about the merits of one tax or another, and how one might be more fair than another. For example, the debate between a progressive tax system like our income tax, versus making a flat tax, is a viable debate. And there are arguments on both sides about which is more fair.

But if posed in a forum like this, most of the people would just hijack and be like LOL TAXES ARE THEFT, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO TAKE ANYTHING, and that would be booooooooo-ring

This thread is why I'm so mean to the ACists, exactly because of the phenomenon described above.


Opposition to the "death tax" is strongly correlated with having absolutely no idea how the estate is administered.

Riverman, did you take a tax class in law school? The estate tax is almost necessary to avoid gift-giving shenanigans because of the step-up in basis rules.

Everyone else, if you don't know what the word "basis" means in the sentence above, you shouldn't have an opinion on the estate tax.

I don't know what the word "basis" means in the sentence above, but I do know that you are an ass.