Ending the estate tax: Walton's - $54 Billion / Koch Bros. - $38 Billion

There shouldn't be an estate tax because all that money was taxed when it was earned initially. Why should that money be taxed again when it's given away to a family member?

You sure it was all taxed?

Problem is there would always be one small island that doesn't support those rules and everyone would incorporate there. Everyone already incorporates in Delaware because of whatever they do there.

The motivation is inbuilt into the system.

The Delaware's of the world hold no attraction as every where else is tax free. Sure people could move production there but the whole idea is that tax/costs are paid where the work is carried out.
 
In the FY 2018 budget there was a repeal of the estate tax, essentially giving the two richest families in the country a $92 Billion tax break.

The estate tax only applies to the top two tenths of the top 1% of the country. Is this a morally defensible move in a period where cuts are being made to medicare and social security?


I kinda feel like the estate tax is one of the most important taxes in the country. Its like a patch being released to fix a broken character in a game. It fixes a glitch of extreme wealth concentration to avoid a capitalist form of royal-like dynasties.

How do you guys feel about the estate tax in general? Do you believe a $92 Billion dollar tax break should be given to 6 people so they can pass fortunes on in perpetuity?
It's the most polarizing tax for me. I abhor it in theory, but admire it in practice.

There are essentially only two taxes where all economists (of every political character except the zero-tax extremists like Grover Norquist) seem to agree the overall economy is made healthier by their presence: the Capital Gains tax and the Estate tax.

But it's looting. It's unquestionably an act of looting. I wish we could figure out a more incentive/process-based means of targeting the wealthy rather than an arbitrary results-based strategy like this. It might be quite viable, economically, but it's indefensible, ideologically.
 
You're right. The working poor have way too much. Cutting the corporate tax rate 40% wasn't enough. Lets increase the taxes on the poor even further. Why the hell can they afford a phone that they get for free for signing a contract designed to exploit them, right?

Its amazing how corporatist propaganda can make people this stupid.

People who work full time dont deserve phones now. Its the most retarded thing i've heard since Fox news complained that 97% of poor people have refrigerators.

We are literally on the brink of an era where it is not worth the time investment to work anymore.


On EBT with the latest iPhone. A total luxury phone on Verizon.

Why not buy a cheap phone for 20 bux and get Cricket wireless, and then feed yourself.
 
Yeah, it's just not really a "transfer" because the deceased didn't willingly transfer the money.
They had no choice because they are dead. They didn't willingly transfer it and therefore agreed to pay the taxes for it.

But I get the point of such a tax. I just think that leaving money for your children or wife should not be taxed.
There should rather be taxes in place to tax it in the first place. Like with the Koch's any sort of capital gain taxes should probably be around 90% or so.
And taxes in place in case you make any money from the inheritance.

Actually, the deceased did do it willingly.

They write it down in their will.
 
Why would we tax earned wealth but not unearned wealth?

Eliminating the estate tax just seems very UnAmerican
 
I'm reading this thread and I will never understand why people can't differentiate between people and corporations.

The estate tax would not eliminate Wal-Mart (which is good).

You can have lower corporate tax rates which is beneficial to the economy while having a robust estate tax or other forms of wealth taxation.

We need to realize that corporations are meant to create products, services and employment.

Taxation should be aimed at individual income and wealth to sustain society.
 
On EBT with the latest iPhone. A total luxury phone on Verizon.

Why not buy a cheap phone for 20 bux and get Cricket wireless, and then feed yourself.
Wanting to control what other people do with the little they have is usually a projection of a feeling of lack of control over one's own life.

Why does seeing poor people with something nice bother you so much?

You do know that EBT cant be used to buy iphones or pay phone bills, right?
 
It's the most polarizing tax for me. I abhor it in theory, but admire it in practice.

There are essentially only two taxes where all economists (of every political character except the zero-tax extremists like Grover Norquist) seem to agree the overall economy is made healthier by their presence: the Capital Gains tax and the Estate tax.

But it's looting. It's unquestionably an act of looting. I wish we could figure out a more incentive/process-based means of targeting the wealthy rather than an arbitrary results-based strategy like this. It might be quite viable, economically, but it's indefensible, ideologically.

I'm surprised you're against it ideologically.

For me it comes down to earned versus unearned wealth.

Practically and society benefits argument that it should have a $ or %threshold I can understand.
 
Cementing the oligarchy

MAGA

Oh yeah, because the tax plan is cementing the oligarchy. In no way it couldn't have existed and been cemented beforehand in ya know, the 1990s.
 
Oh yeah, because the tax plan is cementing the oligarchy. In no way it couldn't have existed and been cemented beforehand in ya know, the 1990s.

I'm not sure what your point is?

This policy strengthens the oligarchy, as applied in 2018. Whether it was already going that way in decades gone by is neither here nor there.

Trump was supposed to be pro worker and pro middle class.
 
I'm not sure what your point is?

This policy strengthens the oligarchy, as applied in 2018. Whether it was already going that way in decades gone by is neither here nor there.

Trump was supposed to be pro worker and pro middle class.
.
I don't think this strengthens an oligarchy. It's an attempt to keep business centralized to America. We already have lobbying, this doesn't do much in my opinion.
 
The estate tax is one of the most unethical and punishing taxes in the country. Extreme wealth concentration is a result of extreme work ethic. Tax inequality is a real issue in this country and ending the estate tax helps alleviate it.
I’m sure this post was addressed but these types of misconceptions are why people can’t have meaningful discussions about this. The idea that wealth generation is only about hard work or talent just shows a gross misunderstanding about wealth is generated unless you’re talking about athletes or entertainers.

And “tax inequality” really made me laugh. Bravo.

The fact remains that the estate tax is the least punitive of all taxes. You don’t get hit until you’re dead, your children did nothing to earn the wealth (destroying hatchets silly idea about work ethic) and it only hits large estates. It’s literally the most fair tax there is.
 
It's the most polarizing tax for me. I abhor it in theory, but admire it in practice.

There are essentially only two taxes where all economists (of every political character except the zero-tax extremists like Grover Norquist) seem to agree the overall economy is made healthier by their presence: the Capital Gains tax and the Estate tax.

But it's looting. It's unquestionably an act of looting. I wish we could figure out a more incentive/process-based means of targeting the wealthy rather than an arbitrary results-based strategy like this. It might be quite viable, economically, but it's indefensible, ideologically.
Ideologically any tax can be seen as “looting” as you put it. Do you agree with that or do you think the estate tax is more so? Is it the most polarizing because the transfer is to family instead of an outsider (like buying goods or paying employees)?
 
Last edited:
I don’t get the hate?



Walmart is great and provides products at crazy low prices.They provide jobs, support local communities, etc. Do we really want to take their money, and waste it in true government fashion?
Yes because the government does a great job with spending money wisely and why should they get to keep their money ??? oO
 
I don’t get the hate?



Walmart is great and provides products at crazy low prices.They provide jobs, support local communities, etc. Do we really want to take their money, and waste it in true government fashion?
Criticims of Walmart aside, do you realize that Walton family and Walmart corporation are different entities? Like, when the senior Waltons die, they don't charge Walmart an estate tax.
 
Criticims of Walmart aside, do you realize that Walton family and Walmart corporation are different entities? Like, when the senior Waltons die, they don't charge Walmart an estate tax.



But that problem does face others.


As you can tell by my rabid participation in this thread, it’s not a subject that I really care about. That being said, I don’t like the idea of the government taking a chunk of what you worked for when you die.

I could envision a compromise (which would never happen btw) where instead of the government collecting the money, they compel a% the estate to be invested into the country as dictated by the estate holder.
 
But that problem does face others.


As you can tell by my rabid participation in this thread, it’s not a subject that I really care about. That being said, I don’t like the idea of the government taking a chunk of what you worked for when you die.

I could envision a compromise (which would never happen btw) where instead of the government collecting the money, they compel a% the estate to be invested into the country as dictated by the estate holder.

Why is the beneficiary of the estate entitled to the proceeds of an estate that they didn't work for? If the government "taking" money that you worked for when you die is unjust, then it follows that the recipient receiving the unearned money is unjust as well. Whether or not you "approve" of it is secondary to the action itself.
 
But that problem does face others.


As you can tell by my rabid participation in this thread, it’s not a subject that I really care about. That being said, I don’t like the idea of the government taking a chunk of what you worked for when you die.

I could envision a compromise (which would never happen btw) where instead of the government collecting the money, they compel a% the estate to be invested into the country as dictated by the estate holder.
I doubt the distinction makes a difference to you, but the government isn't taxing the person who died, but the recipients of the estate.

Such compromises already exist. The recipient of the estate can reduce their tax burden by donating to a charity for instance.
 
It's the most polarizing tax for me. I abhor it in theory, but admire it in practice.

There are essentially only two taxes where all economists (of every political character except the zero-tax extremists like Grover Norquist) seem to agree the overall economy is made healthier by their presence: the Capital Gains tax and the Estate tax.

Lots of economists criticize capital-gains taxes. The general rule is that if you tax something, you get less of that thing. So the taxes that will get wide support from economists (putting aside ideological issues) are taxes on things that are unavoidable or on things that you actually want less of. So land-value taxes (which actually encourage economic development, and which have support from economists from Milton Friedman to Joseph Stiglitz), estate taxes, carbon taxes, tobacco taxes, and more will get pretty much universal support.
 
Back
Top