Rich Kids can spare some of their inheritance

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Horn6721, Oct 16, 2019.

  1. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Opinion | Rich Kids Can Spare Some of Their Inheritance
    "
    In America, if you play by the rules, working to earn a living and saving to provide for the future, taxes take a piece of your earnings. If you win a state lottery, you owe tax. But if you get lucky in the lottery of life and land an inheritance, you owe no federal tax. That isn’t fair, is it? Extending the federal tax code to include inheritances would end that inequity. Inheritance taxes — regulated differently in the states that have them — are a levy paid by a person who inherits money or property of a person who has died.

    Extreme inequality is troubling both because it fosters gross and wasteful consumption and because it undermines the principle of political equality: Nearly unencumbered transfers of wealth permitted under current law perpetuate those imbalances, creating dynasties of the rich and hampering economic and social mobility. wtf?? ( the bold and wtf is mine)

    “Ah,” you may be thinking, “Don’t we have an estate tax to break up wealth dynasties?” We had one once. But now it arguably exist only in name. "

    Just when I think the left has pandered on every topic they come up with a new one> The reality is in the very first sentence, if one works hard and makes money they have already paid taxes on it. How stupid is NYT to not understand this?
     
  2. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    How stupid are they to think that if the money is taxed it will help anybody except a few bureaucrats?
     
  3. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Because tax remittance is used for Military, Roads, National Parks, SNAP, Medicare, National debt interest and last but not least Social Security payments every day of the week. That's just a sample of what taxes already pay for.

    Yes, every one of those programs has administration that manages the programs and some of them get paid handsomely, less than private sector but well nonetheless.

    I have no problem with inheritance taxes but would mandate it all be put towards paying down the principal on our national debt.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2019
  4. towersniper

    towersniper 100+ Posts

    I take it from your penultimate sentence that you would be in favor of eliminating the stepped up basis, then? That gain has never been taxed, in the case of capital assets. Many in the middle class would not be happy about that change.
     
  5. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    We don't agree on many things but this is one that we do. Wealth taxes...stupid. Substantial increases in income taxes...stupid. But if there is one place I would suggest they should tax more, it is inheritance. Not to the point of taking it all but certainly to the point that it prevents any recipient from living without ever contributing one iota of productivity to America. We are supposed to be a meritocracy. We are supposed to reward people based on THEIR efforts, not their mommy's, not their daddy's, not their grandpappy's. The ability of a person in this country to receive so much inheritance that they never have to do anything while there are other people who don't have homes or food absolutely sickens me.

    Bill Gates...no problem...dude earned his massive fortune. It should be his. Baby Gates... not so much.

    I'm not opposed to all inheritance. Half of the reason I get up everyday is to provide for my children and give them a better ramp than I had. But obscene amounts that set people up to never have to contribute....I think that is contrary to virtually everything we stand for.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    Good idea. Let's get rid of taxes altogether since taking from others is not productivity.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Focus on the person giving the inheritance. Taxing inheritance is a violation of private property. The money has already been taxed. It is given as a gift. The government has no right to take part of that gift out of the hands of the recipient. It's theft and we as Americans shouldn't allow.

    Support for it is all based on envy. Who cares what other people have or don't have. It is none of your business. Rich kids can still invest that money which actually is doing a lot for society with it. Or they could use it to help others. Or they could spend on houses, cars, drugs, food, pets, until all of it is gone.

    But where did it go? It went to other people. Leave the poor, rich ******** alone.
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  8. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    Robbing Peter to pay Paul is popular with everyone but Peter.

    I started with nothing but debt 30 years ago. I’ve worked hard and taken risk to build wealth for my
    family. I’ve been taxed and taxed hard throughout.

    Why should money and property that has already been taxed be taken and given to a government that continues to waste taxpayer money?
     
    • Winner Winner x 7
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Why is it the gov't business what one does with money left over after paying taxes?
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 2
  10. Driver 8

    Driver 8 Amor Fati

    The State only exists by various forms of theft
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  11. I35

    I35 5,000+ Posts

    I couldn’t agree more. Somebody in their family tree worked very hard for their money and paid taxes on it already so that it to be passed down to their kids or grandkids.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. nashhorn

    nashhorn 5,000+ Posts

    Who defines obscene, AOC, Bernie, or maybe Warren? I would bet it would be different than any Republican.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  13. Driver 8

    Driver 8 Amor Fati

    If someone is fortunate enough to have wealth without work then good for them I guess, not my business and I don't support stealing their already taxed money. They will still "contribute" taxes on earnings, sales, property ownership, etc
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    I disagree. I think taxing the recipient is the way to go. The person gifting the money would then be encouraged to gift it more widely ($5MM to 100 people, instead of $500MM to one person). If I earn a billion dollars, I would like to direct it to people, places, things that I value so I would give a little bit to a wider audience. Rather than have the government take 40-50%, I would find a way to support the things I care about. On a societal level I don't think we are better off when a super small segment of our society is able to hunker down and sit on generational wealth that was not earned by them.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    An Economic study I read long ago showed generational wealth is inefficiently employed with each successive generation that receives it. I suspect it was a relative lack of work ethic and basic business acumen that reduces between generation. The 2nd generation of guy pulling himself up by the bootstrap to build an empire does OK. It's the 3rd generation in which the dropoff in wealth generation falls off a cliff.
     
  16. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Good for you dude. But you shouldn't get to dictate what other people do. You also shouldn't use the government to forcibly take other people's money so that it is used how YOU want it to be used.

    You know what kind of people talk about using the government harm individuals for the sake of society? Communists. Don't be one.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    As long as it is for the "good of society". The 20th century was full of dictators who talked about things like but ended up killing millions of people.

    I say we stick to being free.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    And you "don't think we are better off" based on what? What do you know about the investments of any of the super rich, or how they spend their money?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. zuckercanyon

    zuckercanyon 2,500+ Posts

    Who say someone who inherits a boatload of money doesn't squander it on wine women and song? They don't sit around polishing their pennies, they go out and invest/vacation/party!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    Now you're talking. Spur that economy baby!
     
  21. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    Are y'all under the impression that all inheritance, no matter how big, is tax free? That is not correct. Any inheritance is taxed as regular income to the inheritor, and then they throw on an EXTRA tax on top of that for inheritances over ~$11MM.
     
  22. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    No it isn't.
     
  23. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    Let me be more precise...
    At the federal level inheritances are not taxed.

    The various states may impose taxes on inheritances though.
     
  24. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    far too much taxation; both in depth and breadth.

    Can't believe I'm reading support for more taxation.

    The statement has been made already ... but that wealth was already taxed ... just like your investments for retirement, but you'll have to pay taxes on that too ... and the taxes upon confiscated earnings (SS).

    Unless this notion of adding federal inheritance tax is an outlier ... we really are doomed before we are doomed.

    Get a grip. Hello freedom.
     
  25. Dionysus

    Dionysus Idoit Admin

    I was executor for my mom’s estate last year and there was no state or federal tax on the distributions, except for an IRA that was funded with pre-tax money. I think there is a tax on estates valued above a certain amount but hers was not in that range.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. I35

    I35 5,000+ Posts

    It’s none of our business how future generations spend their inheritance.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 3
  27. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Envy is one of the seven deadly sins guys.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 3
  28. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    It's slightly above $11 million.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    Your not really getting the nuance of what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting the government get the money, I'm suggesting that the tax would encourage the donor/gifter to spread the money around precisely to avoid the government taking the money. I'm saying, if the gifter chooses to gift it all ($500MM in my example) to one person, then 'yes' it will incur a big rate(40-50%)....however if the gifter chooses to spread it around and give $5MM to 100 different people, then the tax rate should be very low(5%). But in order to accomplish this end result, the tax would need to be targeted at the recipients, not the donor/gifter.
     
  30. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    You think those 100 people would need to keep working? Give me $5 million and I’ll be sitting on the beach driving beer for the rest of my life.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1

Share This Page