Illegal aliens a Social Security boon

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

exactly why are we in favor of taxing monies that have already been taxed?

doesn't "double taxation" ring a bell for anyone? i agree it is easy to build a sympathetic case for an estate tax. i dislike paris as much as anyone, but why is it ok to tax someone twice, just because they have $XX?

"Double taxation" is something like federal and state income tax applying to the same income. Estate tax is not double taxation, it is taxing a transaction just like any other. "Monies" aren't taxed, transactions are, and inheritance is a transaction.

Further, estate taxes are the only limit in our society against a hereditary aristocracy taking hold.

[lookout123]

if person X is paid $100 for doing his job he pays his income tax.
if person X dies, his estate pays taxes on this same $100 before the family can have it.

whatever term you want to use, that is taxing the same thing twice.

[Happy Monkey]

Then so is sales tax. You payed income tax, and then you pay sales tax on the very same money!

Toll roads! You're paying the toll with your already taxed income!

Income is one thing. Inheritance is another thing. Each gets taxed.

[breakingnews]

Aren't estate assets frozen when the estate dies? The way it was explained to me by my brother, we will have to come up with the 40% in taxes to claim the inheritance - our parents holdings cannot be liquidated to pay off the govt.

[lookout123]

in each of those instances you are purchasing or using something in order to create a transaction.

the estate tax does not tax the money as it is passed to the beneficiary. the estate is taxed and the beneficiary gets what is left. that is not a transactionary tax.

but we can agree to disagree on that. will you at least grant that a lot of little people are getting hosed by this tax that people think is only applicable to the ultra wealthy?

[lookout123]

it depends on what the inheritance is BN. the estate can be liquidated to pay the tax, but if there is something that you don't want to sell off, then you will have to come up with the money to pay it.

keep in mind the beneficiary isn't the one being taxed, the estate is.

[breakingnews]

Moving the estate to the beneficiary is the transaction being taxed. Beneficiary is, in some sense, paying to accept this money. It is, after all, his/her inheritance, and in this country, we feel that we have a *right* to that money because it "belongs" to us.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

the estate tax does not tax the money as it is passed to the beneficiary. the estate is taxed and the beneficiary gets what is left. that is not a transactionary tax.

You might as well say that the price of the good is raised, and then the purchaser pays the higher price. The point at which the tax is applied is semantice.

but we can agree to disagree on that. will you at least grant that a lot of little people are getting hosed by this tax that people think is only applicable to the ultra wealthy?

No. The spouse is exempt.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

No.

With one caveat - I think all dollar values, including the estate tax exemption, the AMT cutoff, etc, in tax law should be indexed to inflation.

[lookout123]

the spouse is exempt depending upon titling of assets.

why in the world would you support this redistribution of wealth? someone works hard and becomes successful so now the government is entitled to 40%? how do you figure?

if i work hard, save, invest, and mix in a little luck i should be able to pass what i make on to my son without regard to how much or little i made. it is mine. i worked for it. when i die, if i so desire, he should get it.

so, because people are envious of the ultra wealthy; everyday successful people you come into contact with have to hire attorneys to build a well structured trust for investments and a second trust for insurance policies so that they can stay under the estate tax limits.

you can harp on about fears of an aristocracy, but you are being dishonest if you don't think normal everyday people are getting skewered by the estate tax laws.

[lookout123]

and we haven't covered some pretty important ground here. what is the cutoff line before the government is entitled to start skimming off the top of someone's assets? IOW, how successful is someone allowed to be before they are no longer "one of us" but "one of them"?

[BigV]

Hey l123:

The story you described reminded me of another one I read some time ago. The story is called The £1,000,000 Bank-Note , by Mark Twain. You should read it too. It's fiction, unlike your tale, but they do share similar characteristics.

The principal similarities I see are that in both cases the central figure of the story IS solvent, but that the assets are encumbered. The size, the denominations of the assets are so large that they're difficult to use in regular transactions, like buying food or clothing, or paying taxes. They both have liquidity problems, rather than poverty problems.

The protagonist in the story could easily "pay" for his meal with the note, and be done. But in his story, he uses a different strategy of running lines of credit to track his obligations, which he later pays.

It seems simple to me that the people in the story you told could easily avail themselves of the same solution: credit. None of the assets have to be sold outright. The tax bill could easily be afforded by some combination of credit/cash/etc.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by l123

and we haven't covered some pretty important ground here. what is the cutoff line before the government is entitled to start skimming off the top of someone's assets? IOW, how successful is someone allowed to be before they are no longer "one of us" but "one of them"?

Yeah, they gotta pay. Sucks to be dead, but that's the law the way it's written now.

The dilema you point out regarding the cutoff figure for dividing us and them... yep. That's a toughie. But so's calling 18 executable and 17 not. Is one more guilty because of a number on a calendar? And so is the poverty line. Does one family suffer less because they have one more dollar in their collective pocket? Not likely. What about driving 21 mph in a school zone. Is that measurably less safe than 19 mph? The kid run over in the crosswalk will never be able to tell the difference.

So pointing out in a given specific instance that the limits in place are unfair, tragic, too close to call, etc, is just a distraction from the more important question: Should there be a limit at all? Why have a specific figure?

So we don't have to go to the g-dam mat every time and figger out if this case is worthy of an exemption or not. You and I both live in a world where these arbitrary limits are in place everywhere and yet I don't hear any outcry that speed limits should be lifted everywhere. Or that price tags on goods should be removed in favor of having to bargain for every item. Shit, why the hell measure anything anyway?

[lookout123]

that's kinda the point BigV - i don't believe there should be an estate tax at all. so i am asking the folks who support one, what is the cut off? who gets to give up 40% and who gets to keep it all? it goes back to the same question i've asked before when talking about income taxes - what number defines "wealthy"? people don't seem to realize that the numbers you used to define wealthy when bitching about the rich are found in your own neighborhoods.

the truly wealthy people (i'm not talking about iconic wealth like the hiltons)live in middle class neighborhoods, drive sensible cars, wear sensible clothes, work 50-60 hours week, drink beer and play in the side yard with their kids just like you do. if you don't believe it, look up the statistics for location of millionaires in your area. most of them don't live in the most glamorous neighborhoods and drive BMW's. (most popular milionaire car? used camry)

it is just a feature of politrix that gets us to point our fingers at those "wealthy" people who never have to mingle with the likes of us. one of the wealthiest guys i know is a damn letter carrier for the USPS, for crying out loud! he took the ant and the grasshopper story to heart and lives it. one of the most cashstrapped desperate fools i know has a hummer and a $1.3MM home. go figure.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by lookout123

the spouse is exempt depending upon titling of assets.

Ok, title the assets in a way that makes it work for the result you're seeking...Just curious, would that be Joint tenancy with rights of survivorship?

Originally Posted by lookout123

why in the world would you support this redistribution of wealth? someone works hard and becomes successful so now the government is entitled to 40%? how do you figure?

*RED HERRING ALERT*

Are we talking about what is or what should be? In the case of what is, I'll defer to your more recent exposure to the facts and the laws and accept your conclusion that the government is "entitled" (loaded word) to the taxes owed in this case. If we're talking about what should be, then who in your example is the hard worker? The dead man? Are you arguing against an inheritance tax? Or is this an example of someone still alive, and we're talking about an income tax? 40% income tax seems way high, I agree. But if you're talking about an estate, then I have some questions. Would you include this kind of transfer of assets as income? How does that jive with your position of flatly taxing all income over $30,000?

Originally Posted by lookout123

if i work hard, save, invest, and mix in a little luck i should be able to pass what i make on to my son without regard to how much or little i made. it is mine. i worked for it. when i die, if i so desire, he should get it.

so, because people are envious of the ultra wealthy; everyday successful people you come into contact with have to hire attorneys to build a well structured trust for investments and a second trust for insurance policies so that they can stay under the estate tax limits.

Who benefits under this structure I wonder? But hey, it's yours as you point out. When you transfer it to someone else, it's not yours, by definition. If I am on the ball enough to plan my estate, then I should plan accordingly to include the impact of such forces, like estate taxes. It's really a matter of planning well or poorly. I could keep all my money in the mattress, and realize some advantages and disadvantages, but I shouldn't complain about the results of my own informed choices.

Not that I don't make mistakes in my choices, and still complain. And I sure have a lot of company in this. But that's the way it is. I deal with it. My life is the sum of my choices.

Originally Posted by lookout123

you can harp on about fears of an aristocracy, but you are being dishonest if you don't think normal everyday people are getting skewered by the estate tax laws.

Skewered? I agree that people are people, and only the conclusions we jump to when we associate the things that money can do with those people do differences come up. Look in the other direction of the linear scale you imagined. Look downward. Do you not see many many more people less well off than the ones you described as skewered? It's a matter of perspective.

Speaking of perspective, this family you describe, is their glass half full or half empty? Or 60% full and 40% empty? Can we focus a moment on the volume that the 60% represents? Is it enough? It may be missing a honkin' chunk but what remains is still bigger than many others, and still big enough to do many things. I once heard money described as stored choice. That kind of estate represents plenty of choices.

It's only when the focus shifts to the missing part that the loss is felt. That's when it feels like taking. Count your blessings is good advice. Striving and earning and the fruits of a capitalist society are all Good Things. But striving for the sake of striving is not a good thing. What about contentment. What about the concept of enough. When is it enough. And when I have enough, *I* believe the excess *should* be shared. Shared with my family, with my community, and with the rest of humanity.